Talleyrand

DELHI UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
cu N’o. V 6 „ ' ! -f L 5 ! I

Ac No -4 1 >. Date of rel ease

Thii book should he returned on nr before the date la'Jt tamped
below. An overdue charge of 0 nP, will be charijed lor each
day the book is kept overtime-

THE BEDFORD HISTORICAL SERIES- VI

TALLEYRAND

THE BEDFORD HISTORICAL SERIES

I QUEEN ELIZABETH. J. E. Neale

II THOMAS MORE. R. W. Chambers

III STRAFFORD. C. V. Wedgwood

lY A HISTORY OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE.
Charles Seignobos

V NAPOLEON. Jacques Bainville
VI TALLEYRAND. Duff Cooper

TALLEYRAND
from a portrait by Scheffer

THE BEDFORD HISTORICAL SERIES

TALLEYRAND

by

DUFF COOPER

JONATHAN CAPE
THIRTY BEDFORD SQUARE
LONDON

EIR8T PUBLISHED, OCTOBER I932
SECOND IMPRESSION, OCTOBER I932
THIRD IMPRESSION, NOVEMBER 1932
FOURTH IMPRESSION, DECEMBER I932
FIFTH IMPRESSION, FEBRUART 1933
SIXTH IMPRESSION, MAY 1933
seventh' IMPRESSION, OCTOBER 1 93 3
EIGHTH IMPRESSION, AUGUST I934
NINTH IMPRESSION, DECEMBER 1934
TENTH IMPRESSION, NOVEMBER I935
ELEVENTH IMPRESSION, APRIL I936
TWELFTH IMPRESSION, JANUARY I937

FIRST PUBLISHED IN
OCTOBER 1938

THE BEDFORD HISTORICAL SERIES

REPRINTED OCTOBER I938
REPRINTED OCTOBER 1939
REPRINTED AUGUST 1 942
REPRINTED NOVEMBER 1 943
REPRINTED JANUARY 1 945

This book has been translated into
Csoechoslovakian, Danish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian,
Norwegian, Rumanian and Spanish (in South America).

JONATHAN CAPE LTD., 30 BEDFORD
SQUARE, LONDON AND AT TORONTO
PRINTED IN great BRITAIN BY
J. AND J. GRAT^ EDINBURGH AND
BOUND BY A. W. BAIN AND CO. LTD.

Contents

CHA.PTHR PACK

I. THE OLD REGIME II

11. THE REVOLUTION 30

III. EXILE 60

IV. THE DIRECTORY 82

V. THE CONSULATE Iig

VI. THE EMPIRE 145

VII. TREASON I 71

VIII. THE BEGINNING OF THE END I 9 O

IX. THE RESTORATION 217

X. THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 238

XI. THE SECOND RESTORATION • 262

XII. RETIREMENT 283 '

XIII. THE LONDON EMBASSY 313

XIV. THE LAST TREATY 344

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND NOTES 377

INDEX 39^

i

List of Illustrations

TALLEYRAND

[From a portratl by Scheffer)

TALLEYRAND

[From a miniature by Isabey)

TALLEYRAND

(From a portrait by Gerard)

TALLEYRAND

[From a drawing by Macltse)

Frontispiece
facing page 30

» H 172
» j> 344

TO

H. BELLOC

Chapter One

THE OLD REGIME

1

The childhood of a French nobleman in the eighteenth
century was not usually the period of his Jife upon which he
looked back with either affection or regret. The doctrine
that parents exist for the sake of their children was not
then accepted, and the loving care and hourly attention
bestowed upon the children of to-day would have appeared
ridiculous to sensible people. When Rousseaiv, the first man
of sentiment, abandoned all his children, one after the
other, to be brought up as unknown foundlings, his conduct
was thought odd but not vile. The heir to the richest duke-
dom in France describes how his education was entrusted
to one of his father’s lackeys who happened to be able to
read, how he was dressed in the prettiest clothes for going
out but how at home he was left naked and hungry, and how
this was the fate of all the children of his age and class. The
modern method reflects greater credit on the parents; but
evidence is not yet sufficient to prove that it produces a
superior type of individual.

Family feeling, however, which has always existed more
strongly in France than in England, was certainly as pre-
valent and as powerful at that period as it is to-day. It was a
sentiment that cared more for the interests of the family as a
whole than for the interests of the separate members of the
family. The individual was expected, and often compelled,
to make sacrifices in order that the family might benefit.

II

12

THE OLD REGIME

The Bastille, which, under the Old Regime, played such an
exaggerated part in the imaginations of the ignorant, was
principally used to enable indignant parents to obtain from
their children that measure of obedience which they con-
sidered that the interests of the family decreed.

Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-P^rigord, who tyas born
in Paris on 2nd February i75'4, was in his earliest years a
victim of these two apparently contradictory tendencies,
parental neglect and family pride. He has set it upon record
that, during his whole life, he never spent one week under the
same roof as his father and mother; and an accident, which
occurred to him in infancy while boarded out in the house of
a poor woman in the suburbs of Paris, rendered him per-
manently lame, and therefore unfitted him, in the opinion
of his parents, to inherit his father’s many titles, which, it
was then arranged, should devolve upon his younger brother.

Yet it is not necessary to assume that these parents were
inhuman; they were merely following the fashion of their
time. They were most anxious to promote the interests of
every member of their family, but they did not believe that
the future welfare of a man depended upon constant super-
vision of his childhood. They desired, and sought to obtain,
wealth and honour for each of their children, and they knew
of only two channels through which wealth and honour
could come to a gentleman — the Army and the Church. But
a cripple could not be a soldier, and a priest could not hand
on his name and titles to his son, and they therefore decided
that the second son should be the future head of the family
and that the eldest son should enter the Church.

Soon after the occurrence of this accident, which was to
exercise so fateful an influence upon his life, the child was
sfent upon a visit to his great-grandmother, the Princess de
Chalais, who resided upon her estates in the province of
Pdrigord. The months that followed were the happiest of

THE OLD REGIME

13

his childhood. He found hittiself living in a period that had
already passed away. The old Princess maintained a state of
simple, feudal dignity, which the nobility of France had
forgotten since Richelieu taught them to live at Court and to
look for all preferment to the King. The independence of
the aristocracy had vanished, but the quick-witted little boy
was permitted to behold at Chalais, as he sat on a stool at the
great lady’s feet, a survival of the feudal system, and a vision
of what France had been more than a hundred years before.

Every Sunday the principal gentlemen from the sur-
rounding country would come to accompany the old lady to
church. After the ceremony all the poor and the sick would
collect in the hall of the chiteau and they would be received
singly by the Princess. Two sisters of charity would inter-
rogate them as to their symptoms and prescribe the remedy.
The Princess would then say where it was to be found and
one of the gentlemen in attendance would proceed to get it.
The chiteau was full of medicines and unguents freshly
prepared every year in accordance with ancient recipes.
The sick people would take away also some herbs for their
ptisan, some wine and other comforts, but what they valued
most were the kind words of the lady who helped them and
who felt for their sufferings.

Remembering the scene years afterwards he wrote;
‘More thorough and scientific medicines employed, even
equally free of charge, by doctors of the first reputation,
would not have brought nearly so many poor people to-
gether and, above all, would not have done them so much
good. There would have been lacking the main instruments
of healing— prevention, respect, faith, and gratitude. Man
is composed of a soul and a body and it is the former that
governs the latter. The wounded who have received con-
solation, the sick who have been persuaded to hope are
already in a state to be cured; their blood circulates better,

14 the old regime

their nerves are strengthened, sleep returns, and the body
'revives. Nothing is more efficacious than confidence; and
it is at its fullest force when it springs from the care and
attention of a great lady, around whom are gathered all
ideas of power and protection.’

These enlightened views on the relative importance of
mind and matter were not all that he took away from his visit
to Chalais. For the first time he was treated with real
affection and for the first time he felt proud to belong to an
ancient family which through long service had earned
respect and love. ‘If I have shown, without too much
familiarity, some affectionate and even tender sentiments; if
I have retained in changing circumstances some dignity
without any haughtiness; if I respect and love old people, it
was at Chalais and from my grandmother that I derived all
the good feelings with which I saw my family was regarded
in that province.’ He parted from the old Princess in tears.
She had been born when James ii was King of England; he
was to die in the reign of Queen Victoria.

When he arrived in Paris after a journey tliat had taken
seventeen days, the child of eight was sent direct to school
at the College d’Harcourt, without even being permitted
to pay a visit to his parents on the way. Henceforth his
relations with them were limited to a weekly dinner, to which
he was conducted by his tutor, and which he never left
without receiving the same admonition— ‘Be a good boy
and do as Monsieur the Abb^ tells you.’ But he was not
unhappy at school. The shadow of the future had not yet
fallen upon him. He was popular with his school-fellows,
and already gave proof of that adaptability to circumstances
and power of pleasing his contemporaries, which were to
stand him in such good stead throughout his career.

It was during a period of convalescence after an attack of
smallpox, which left him unmarked, that he first began to

THE OLD REGIME

*5

wonder upon what lines his parents had decided that his life
was to proceed. He was not to be left long in doubt, and
from the first announcement his whole nature, which had so
little of the spiritual about it, revolted against the prospect
of becoming a priest. In the hope that the pomp and
splendour, inseparable at that time from an episcopal
residence, might captivate his youthful imagination, he was
sent to stay with his uncle at the Archbishopric of Rheims,
where no pains were spared to impress upon him what a
fine and pleasant thing it was to rise to a high position in the
Church. But he remained unimpressed and, after a year
spent in these surroundings, it was only out of weariness and
in the conviction that to oppose the wishes of his family was
impossible, that he finally consented to enter the seminary
of Saint Sulpice, with a view to eventually tajcing Orders.

Here, where he remained for three years, he was no
* longer popular. His fellow students found him haughty and
reserved, whereas in reality he was only unhappy. Readers
of Le Rouge et le Noir will remember what Julien suffered
at the seminary of Besan^onj and it does not need the
imagination of a Stendhal to conceive all the bitterness,
the impatience, the despair, that must pass through the soul
of a full-blooded, worldly, intelligent, and ambitious youth
during the long days and nights of adolescence in an ecclesi-
astical college.

In the depression that weighed so heavily upon him
the young student discovered two sources of distraction,
both of which were to prove of value to him throughout his
life. The first was the college library into which he plunged
hungrily, reading principally the works of historians and
biogiaphies of statesmen, and feeding his hopes for the
■future upon the record of the past. The other distraction —
more intimate and more personal— he found in his first love
affair— the first of many, A chance encounter in a church,

THE OLD REGIME

i6

an offer to share his umbrella in the rain, led to an
intimacy that lasted for two years. She was a young actress
whom her parents had forced to go upon the stage against
her will; he against his will was in process of becoming a
priest. Different as were the roads selected for them by
parental authority, they found a bond of union in the fact
that they were both dedicated to a profession that they had
not chosen; and the priest who could not love the Church
found consolation in the arms of the actress who hated the
stage. It is odd that his first romance, like that of Sir
Walter Scott, should have begun under an umbrella.

The coronation of Louis xvi at Rheims, which Talleyrand
attended in 1775, was the occasion of his first introduction
into the great world, where he was to play so prominent and*
so prolonged a part. He was now twenty-one years of age,
and although there awaited him still four years of preparation
before entering the priesthood, he returned no more to
Saint Sulpice, but became a student at the Sorbonne, leading
a life of complete liberty in Paris.

Wordsworth found it bliss to be alive at the dawn of the
French Revolution, and to be young then was, he said, ‘very
heaven.’ But Talleyrand, whose ideas of bliss and of heaven
differed considerably from those of the poet, preferred a
slightly earlier period, and asserted that nobody could ap-
preciate the pleasure of living who had not lived before
1.789. He was well qualified to speak with authority on the
subject of pleasure, and his tireless pursuit of it was not
hindered by the fact that he was to become a priest, nor by
his ordination, which took place in the year 1779.

His ordination, and the livings which he subsequently
^acquired, and- which carried no duties with them, enabled

THE OLD REGIME

17

him to be independent of his parents, and to afford a manner
of living which became his rank rather than his calling. His
first preferment is said to have come to him as the result of a
witticism that he let fall in the drawing-room of Madame
Dubarry, where he complained that in Paris the ladies were
more easily to be won than the Abbeys. But the story is
unlikely, for by the time that Talleyrand was frequenting
the salons of Paris, Madame Dubarry had ceased to have
any Abbeys at her disposal.

As soon as he was in a financial position to do so, he
acquired a small but comfortable house in a quiet and leafy
corner of Paris, where he collected a library of precious
volumes and entertained a select and brilliant circle of
friends. It became a habit for three or four of them to call
there every morning for the purpose of conversation, and
to remain to luncheon. The dearest of these to Talleyrand,
or rather to the Abbd de Pdrigord, as he was usually called
at this time, was Auguste de Choiseul, the nephew of
Louis xv’s Minister. They had first met as boys at the
College d’Harcourt and an intimate friendship, which was
never troubled by the shadow of a quarrel, united the two
men throughout their eventful lives. ‘He was,’ said Talley-
rand, ‘the man that I most loved.’

The name of Louis de Narbonne was at the time often
associated with those of the other two as forming a trio
distinguished throughout the fashionable world of Paris for
their wit, their wickedness, and their conquests. The
coterie, of which these three were the centre and heart,
included amongst its members all those who were most
intelligent, most free thinking, most free speaking, and most
free living in Paris.

Never before, perhaps, and never since has a society
existed so well equipped to appreciate all the pleasures
both of the senses and of the intellect. The restraints upon

I8 THE OLD REGIME

liberty of thought and action which man had constructed
for himself in the past were falling away, and those with
which he has since replaced them were not yet invented.
It was a period of feverish excitement, of daring speculation,
of boundless hope. It was the entr’acte between two epochs,
and the group that met in the foyer, provided by the house
of the lame young Abbd at Bellechasse, were well aware
that the next act would differ considerably from the one
they had already witnessed. They were sufficiently far-
sighted to foresee, and bold enough to speculate upon and
to accept, the lines along which the drama would develop;
but meanwhile they had only to flirt, to gamble, and to
chatter, until called to their several places by the ringing of
the bell that shotild announce the rise of the curtain.

It was the apogee of the philosophical period and, as was
fitting, the patriarch of philosophy arrived in Paris, to
receive the adulation of his disciples before it was too late.
Voltaire, now a very old man, was welcomed with more
than royal honours, and one of the last acts which he per-
formed was solemnly to bestow his blessing upon the Abb^
de Pdrigord, who knelt at his feet, amid the loud applause
of the company.

It is too commonly supposed that the French aristocracy
before the Revolution was haughty and exclusive, but the
barriers that had hitherto opposed the entry into society of
men of humble birth, were already disappearing. Talley-
rand himself bears witness, not without regret, to the changed
conditions beginning to prevail. The love of gambling and
the admiration for witty conversation were, in his opinion,
the principal causes of this development. Gambling is a
great leveller, and a good talker can soon make an
audience forget his lack of heraldic quarterings. The
Revolution was to proclaim ‘the career open to talent’ as a
new gospel, but a social career in Paris was already open,

THE OLD REGIME

19

if not to talent, at any rate to the bold punter and the ready
tongue.

This was the age of conversation, of free and unfettered
discussion upon every subject in heaven or on earth. To
talk well was then considered the highest attribute that any
person could possess. It was the one art at which all en-
deavoured to excel, the one channel into which all talent
was directed. Such conversation as was then audible in
Paris had never, perhaps, been heard since certain voices in
Athens fell silent two thousand years before. Nor has it
been repeated. To every human development there is, it
seems, a limit set. The days of the age of conversation were
already numbered. The age of events was at hand.

There was one quality that was novel in this conversa-
tional period, and which distinguishes it from similar
periods in the past. Neither Aspasia nor Xanthippe take
any part in the dialogues that Plato has recorded. But in the
Paris of Talleyrand’s youth the great ladies were the leaders '
of talk as well as of fashion. They were the arbiters not
only of elegance, but of ethics, of politics, and of all the
arts. No man could rise to prominence except against the
background of a saldn, and over every salon a woman ruled.

The years that have since elapsed have witnessed what
is called the enfranchisement of woman, but neither from
the polling booth nor from her seat in Parliament has she
as yet succeeded in exercising the same control over the
lives of men and the fate of nations as was hers while she
remained merely the centre of a select circle in her own
drawing-room.

Already, in the earlier' part of the century and in the
two centuries before, queens and mistresses of kings had
played great parts in public life, but for the first time
‘Society,’ to use the word in the sense in which Talleyrand
himself employed it, began to represent an important body

20 THE OLD regime:

of opinion, independent of, and in opposition to, that of the
Court.

In feudal times the king had had to reckon with a free
and powerful nobility, living upon their own land, and
relying upon the ^ support of their own adherents. The
struggle between king and landed aristocracy had resulted
in France in the defeat of the aristocracy, just as in England
it had resulted in the defeat of the king. And just as in
England the king had been allowed to retain all the outward
trappings of sovereignty after he had lost the reality of
power, so in France the aristocracy retained all their old
privileges and the glitter and glamour of greatness long
after they had ceased to take any important part in the
government of the country.

For a hundred years and more the monarchy in France
had been absolute and popular. It was beginning now to
lose both power and prestige. A sinister symptom of what
was to follow appeared when the higher ranks of society
began to lose their respect for the sovereign. It started when
Louis XV selected as his principal mistress a member of the
middle-class, it' continued when he chose her successor from
the streets. When the feud between Madame Dubarry
and the Duke de Choiseul ended in the dismissal of the
minister, the road to Chanteloup, his country house, was
crowded with carriages, while familiar faces were absent
from the Court at 'Versailles. For the first time in French
history the followers of fashion flocked to do homage to a
fallen favourite. People wondered at the time, but hardly
understood the profound significance of the event. The king
was no longer the leader of society. Kings and Presidents,
Prime Ministers and Dictators provide at all times a target
for the criticism of philosophiirs, satirists, and reformers.
Such criticism they can usually afford to neglect, but when
the time-servers, the sycophants, and the courtiers begin to

•THE OLD REGIME

21

disregard them, then should the strongest of them tremble
on their thrones.

The prestige that Louis xv had lost Louis xvi did not
recover. It is true that at the opening of the new reign all
the auspices were favourable. A young and virtuous king
in place of an old and vile one; a young and beautiful queen
in place of a horde of mistresses. Unpopular ministers were
dismissed and popular ones replaced them. And it is
interesting to remember, that Talleyrand in his memoirs
remarks that the epithet ‘popular’ began for the first time
to be associated wi^ ministers. The popularity of ministers
was beginning to be a matter of importance.

The new King and the new Government were popular,
which means that they were liked by the people. But
fashionable society, which was at this time strongly liberal
in sentiment and to whom, as to all Liberals, ‘the People’ was
an abstract term rather than a number of individuals,
fashionable society, dissolute in morals, elegant in manners,
pagan at heart, could show no allegiance to a youthful
monarch who was neither intelligent nor elegant, but rrierely
a clumsy, courageous, shortsighted Christian, desperately
anxious to do right.

Liberal and progressive politics were professed, with or
without sincerity, by a large number of those whose words
and actions carried weight in the great world of the day.
Nor was there lacking a rallying point around which the
most reckless and most radical elements in the aristocracy
could gather. Apart from the King’s own children and
brothers, the Duke of Orleans, although a distant cousin,
was the next heir to the throne. His wealth was prodigious,
his intelligence was not mean, his character was despicable
but not unamiable, and he made of the Palais Royal, which
was his home, a centre for all those who were inclined to
criticise the Government, to laugh at the King, to repeat

44 THE OLD REGIME

gossip about the Queen, to air revolutionary theories, and to
indulge without restraint in all the dissipations that wealth
and power and privilege could provide,

Choderlos de, Laclos was an intimate member of the
Orleans circle, and he has left, in his’ famous novel, an
impressive picture of the corruption of the world in which
he lived. Talleyrand soon became a member of that world,
and considerable were the attractions which it provided for
a young, ambitious, and already slightly embittered man.
Here was to be found all that was most amusing and all
that was most alluring in Paris. The great wits and the great
ladies gave equally of their best. And a young man, whose
intelligence' forbade him from thinking that love and
laughter were the whole of life, could feel that in this
particular coterie, while he was enjoying himself enor-
mously, he was also upon the. fringe of politics and on the
outskirts of public life.

There is a school of historical writers who will represent
the whole of the French Revolution as the result of an
Orleanist plot, whereas others deny that the Duke of
Orleans was anything but a misguided nonentity exercising
no influence whatever upon the events that took place. It
is not proposed here to examine the theories or the evidence
of either school, but it may be stated in general terms that
the Palais Royal before the Revolution represented, in a
country where parliamentary government was unknown,
the headquarters of what in England would be called the
Opposition. It was therefore natural that a young man with
capacity and without preferment should drift towards that
centre, even if it had not possessed so many additional
attractions.

THE OLD REGIME

23

3

It is difficult to form in the mind a definite picture of the
personal appearance of any individual whom we shall never
see. Of Talleyrand we know that he was about the middle
height, that he had a slightly retrouss^ nose, which en-
hanced a haughty and even insolent expression, and that
he walked with a limp. Barras, who hated him, asserts that
he strikingly resembled Robespierre; Arnault, who did not
love him, said that he concealed the heart of a devil under
an angel’s face. Whether or not he could be described as
handsome, there is no doubt that his wit and charm of
manner made amends for any physical shortcomings, and
his numerous successful love affairs were acknowledged,
condemned, and envied.

It would be an ungrateful and a graceless task to rum-
mage among the printed libels of the past in the hope of
ascertaining exactly what his relationship may have been
with one or another of the many women with whom his
name was at different times connected. Let it suffice to say
that in that gay and gallant world to which his birth ad-
mitted him, he assumed immediately a position almost of
leadership, that he loved many women and that many loved
him, and that those who loved him were admittedly the most
intelligent, the most beautiful, and the mpst influential.
Let it be said also, for fear of falling into panegyric, that in
an age of universal latitude and easily condoned licence,
his conduct incurred severe condemnation, and that he
acquired notoriety even before he acquired fame.

Two incidents connected with this period of Talleyrand’s
life throw light both upon the epoch and the individual.
The Countess de Brionne, daughter of a Prince of Rohan
and wife of the Master of the Horse, was one of the most
influential and most beautiful women of the day. So

24 the old regime

much was she impressed by the qualities of the Abbd de
P6rigord, that she designed to procure for him at the age
of thirty, no less an honour than a cardinal’s hat. For this
purpose she wrote to the King of Sweden, a Protestant but
a very good friend of the Pope’s, whose acquaintance she
had made a few years previously during his visit to Paris.
Gustavus in no doubt did his best and might have succeeded
had not a still more powerful protagonist entered the lists
from another quarter. The Austrian Government naturally
carried more weight at the Court of Rome than any Lutheran
monarch, and the Austrian Government was found to be
strongly opposed to the candidature of the Abb6 de Pdrigord.
To a modern mind it may seem remarkable that the King of
Sweden and the Emperor should be so closely concerned in
the fortunes of an undistinguished French abb6. The
King's reasons for intervention have been referred to, and
the Emperor’s were not dissimilar. His sister was Marie
Antoinette, Queen of France, and there had recently been
an ugly scandal connected with the purchase of a diamond
necklace by a Cardinal, who had been persuaded that the
Queen was in love with him. The name of the Cardinal was
Rohan, which was also the maiden name of the Countess
de Brionne, who had warmly espoused her cousin’s cause
throughout the affair. Marie Antoinette had not forgiven
her. Word was sent through the Austrian Arhbassador at
Versailles to the Court of Vienna that the Austrian repre-
sentative at the Vatican was to oppose the claims of any
candidate supported by the Countess de Brionne, the
Cardinal de Rohan, or the King of Sweden. The Austrian
Ambassador carried out his orders and the Abbd de P^rigord
Was not promoted.

It seemed to Talleyrand, having failed to acquire a
cardinal’s hat,^ that a bishop’s mitre should be his for the
asking, and when he was confidently expecting one it came

THE OLD REGIME

25

to him as g rude blow to find that once again his claims had
been overlooked. The reason for his failure to obtain prefer-
ment* upon this occasion must have caused savage sarcasm
and bitter mirth amongst the society of the Palais Royal.
The young King had, it appeared, acquired from somewhere
the absurd idea that a bishop should be a man of virtuous
life, and as the open licence of the private life of the Abbd
de P^rigord was becoming a scandal, His Majesty took the
view that another man would be a more suitable occupant
of the vacant see.

Subsequently, however, when another bishopric fell
vacant, the King was approached on behalf of the Abb^ de
P^rigord from a quarter and in a manner that he was unable
to resist. Talleyrand’s father was dying. In his youth he
had been personal equerry to the father of Louis xvi. He
had neglected and disinherited, his eldest son, but he could
not bear to die without seeing him a bishop. Louis xvi
could be obstinate, but he could not refuse the request of a
dying man who had been a friend of his father’s. So Talley-
rand, despite, it is said, the protest of his own mother, who like
others, deplored his way of living, became Bishop of Autun
in the year 1788.

4

A life of idle pleasure, even such pleasure as eighteenth-
century Paris could provide, is incapable of satisfying the
aspirations of a very intelligent man. And the reason of this
is that work is a form of pleasure, and that a man who has
never worked has missed one of the greatest pleasures of
life. Talleyrand, into whose lap all the simpler pleasures
were beginning to fall, realised in good time that his in-
tellect would demand a kind of satisfaction that his senses
could never give. Appointed in 1780 to the position of
Agent-General of the Clergy, he determined at once to make

26

THE OLD REGIME

the most of the appointment. It was one of those many
positions, which exist to-day as they existed then, where a
man will be excused for doing nothing, and will probably be
blamed for doing much.

Talleyrand worked hard in an office that might have been
a sinecure, and, despite his gay life in the great world, he
succeeded in making a deep impression upon his contem-
poraries as a man of affairs and a practical reformer. Two
instances may be quoted of the kind of thing that this
dissolute Abbd attempted to do in pre-revolutionary France.
He had travelled in Brittany. A love affair had taken him
there, but he had not been too busy to attend to a grievance
that had been brought to his notice. Amongst that sea-
faring folk the wives whose husbands did not come back
from the sea were not allowed by the rules of the Church to
consider that their husbands were dead. They had' to live
out the rest of their lives neither maids, nor wives, nor
widows. Talleyrand attempted to change this system and to
permit the unfortunate women to assume, after a reasonable
interval, the death of their husbands. He failed. His
memorandum on the subject was thrown into the fire by the
Bishop of Arras, and, as he himself remarks in his memoirs,
there had to be a revolution before these poor Breton women
were allowed to re-marry, and many of them had grown
rather old in the interval.

As Agent-General of the Clergy, solicitous of^e interests
both of Clergy and people, he suggested one other reform
of an equally practical and popular nature. The State was
rapidly going bankrupt, the Church was still extremely
rich. One important source of State revenue was the govern-
ment lottery. Talleyrand, we may assume, had no strong
moral objection to gambling, since throughout his life he
was a devotee both of the stock- exchange and of the ^ card
table. But he realised, as every economist has realised, that,

THE OLD REGIME

27

for the welfare of the State, the gambling instinct should be
discouraged, and, as a member of the Church, he saw how
that body could gain prestige, and at the same time assist
the Government and benefit the community. He suggested
that the Church should purchase from the Government for
a large sum the right of raising lotteries and should then
abolish them. In the light of subsequent events it appears
an admirable suggestion, but such suggestions, however ad-
mirable, fall upon deaf ears when revolutions are impending.

The duties of Agent-General of the Clergy were not,
however, sufficient to satisfy Talleyrand’s appetite for
political activity. Already his mind was attracted towards
questions of external policy and already he was dabbling in
subterranean diplomacy. Calonne had recently taken charge
of the finances of France. He was a statesman with whom
Talleyrand found it easy to be friends. A courtier first,
he would reply to any request of the Queen: ‘Madam, if it
is possible it is done, if it is impossible it shall be done.’
Behind a completely frivolous appearance he concealed
ability, and was able to detect it in others. Talleyrand saw
in his friendship with the Minister an opening into the
world of foreign affairs of which he was quick to avail
himself.

One of the principal subjects of political discussion at
the time was the Commercial Treaty concluded in 1786
between France and England, which established something
like free trade between the two countries. It was criticised
at first in France on the ground that it seemed to bp working
too favourably for England. Talleyrand defended it. They
were living in the age of reason and what could be more
reasonable than to abolish tariffs between an agricultural
and an industrial country, the one receiving freely the manu-
factured goods and the othet the natural products of the
neighbour? So it seemed to the young politician in 1786

THE OLD REGIME

a8

who hoped that an era of free exchange was approaching,
and a better understanding between the two countries, now
that the unhappy events of the American War of Independ-
ence were forgotten. Calonne was one of the authors of this
policy which Talleyrand supported now and clung to for
the rest of his life.

There could not have existed a greater contrast to the
suave, rosy, and smiling Calonne than the terrific, frowning,
passionate, pockmarked Mirabeau. Yet Talleyrand was
equally intimate with both, and persuaded the one to
employ the other. Mirabeau, who was, as ever, in urgent
need of money, was glad to accept a secret mission to
Berlin, tl>ere to find out how long the dying Frederick was
likely to live, and what would be the policy of his successor.
Mirabeau, however, was never meant for a diplomatist, and
the mission proved singularly lacking In result. All his
reports were addressed to Talleyrand, who communicated
them to Calonne.

Mirabeau, while he was in Berlin, began to suspect that
Talleyrand was betraying him. A man of violent passions
and the greatest orator of the age, for any mood- that was
upon him he found memorable words: ‘The Abbd de
Fdrlgord,’ he wrote, ‘would sell his soul for money; and he
would be right, for he would be exchanging dung for gold.’
A report that in his absence Talleyrand was making love to
his mistress may have been responsible for the vigour of
this denunciation, and, in spite of it, the two men
' became again, almost immediately afterwards, the firmest of
friends.

Thus, upon the eve of the Revolution, the Bishop of
Autun was already a man of considerable importance in
Paris. Thirty-five years of age, celebrated for his wit, his
profligate life, and his practical ability, he had already
achieved an ascendancy in the salon and a secure footing

THE OLD REGIME

39

in the political arena. Noble birth, influential connections,
and a powerful intelligence, supported by high ambition
and unburdened by scruples, all seemed to designate him
as a worthy successor to the great ecclesiastical statesmen
who in the past had controlled the destiny of France.

Chapter Two

THE REVOLUTION

I

In 1789, ■with bankruptcy staring the Government in the
face, Louis xvi took the momentous decision to summon
the States-General. This meant nothing less than the calling
together of representatives of the whole people. Upon the
face of it the step was fraught with danger. Changes in
method of government should be gradual. For a hundred
and fifty years France had been the most autocratic, as
England was the most democratic, state in Europe. Yet at
this crisis in her affairs it was decided to bring together for
purposes of consultation a body far more democratic than
the House of Commons as it then existed or than any con-
temporary assembly in the world.

The States-General had not met since 1614, and anyone
born, as Talleyrand was, in 1754, must have grown up in
the belief that 'they would never meet again. But the un-
expected happened; and for those men, who were still
young, who were conscious of theff abilities and spurred by
their ambition, but whose activities had hitherto been, of
necessity, confined to backstair diplomacy and Court intrigue,
there opened suddenly a new, broad, and- honourable road-
way to political preferment and power.

At Rheims, in 1783, Talleyrand had met in his uncle’s
house the young William Pitt, who was by five years his
junior, who had already been Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and was shortly to become Prime Minister of England

30

THE REVOLUTION

31

the age of twenty-five. His French contemporaries,
obsessed as many of them were with democratic notions
of government and the fashionable anglophilism which
was particularly prevalent at the Palais Royal, must
often have reflected that, given similar opportunities and
conditions in their own country, they would certainly have
distinguished themselves as rapidly as the morose and sickly
young Englishman had done. Now the opportunity was at
hand.

The first thing was to secure a constituency. Three
Orders were to be represented, the Clergy, the Nobility
and the Third Estate. There was no hereditary chamber,
each order elected its own representatives. Many of the
Clergy and of the Nobility were elected to represent the
Third Estate, but the clearly indicated constituents of the
Bishop of Autun were the clergy of his own diocese, and, in
order to make sure that there should occur no hitch in an
arrangement so obviously right and proper, the Bishop
decided to tear himself away from Paris and to visit, for the
first and last time in his episcopal career, the centre of his
see.

His sojourn at Autun lasted for a month, and during that
time he did everything in his power to acquire the support
and good will of the local clergy. All witnesses are agreed
as to the exceptional powers which he possessed of rendering
himself agreeable to those whom he wished to please. He
who had already conquered the salons and the alcoves of
Paris found it a simple task to charm and to convince the
Burgundian priesthood. Throughout his life he was an
epicure of the table as well as of other pleasures, and he was
able to entertain his future constituents as they had never
been entertained before.

Nor were the inducements which he held out for their
support limited to the excellence of his table and the

32

THE REVOLUTION

brilliance of his conversation. More solid reasons for
approval were provided for those who demanded them. To
the assembled clergy of the diocese he delivered a speech,
in which he boldly stated what he considered to be the
principal abuses that then existed, and drew up a whole
programme of practical reforms. It was the custom for
those who were represented at the States-General to furnish
their representatives with a memorial of their complaints
and grievances, and in the old days the representative, who
had been little more than the agent of his constituents, had
hardly any other duty to perform than to transmit this
memorial or ‘cahier’ to the Sovereign after it had been in-
corporated in a general ‘cahier’ for. the whole estate.

The clergy of Autun when they came to compile their ^
‘ cahier ’ upon this occasion found that they could not do better
than transcribe, almost word for word, the address that had
been delivered to them by their Bishop. And so Talleyrand,
not for the last time in his career, received, before depart-
ing upon a mission, instructions of which he was himself'
the author.

Some idea of his political opinions at that time may be
obtained from a brief summary of this address. He is in
favour of regular sessions of the States-General and of
codification of the law. No law should be passed and, above
all, no taxation should be imposed, without the consent of
the people. Public order, he maintains, is based upon
two foundations — property and liberty. Property is sacred,
but — and there follows a very far-reaching and far-sighted
limitation to the doctrine— it may -be necessary to inquire
whether the term ‘property’ has not come to be applied to
certain objects which could only come under it by a violation
of the laws of nature, and also whether in some cases it is
not still applied although the causes of its original application
have disappeared. He seems here to be leaving himself a

THE REVOLUTION 33

loophole for consenting to the nationalisation of Church
lands.

Liberty of the subject is to be guaranteed by trial by jury
and by habeas corpus. Freedom of speech and of the press
is to be allowed, and private correspondence is to be in-
violable. Education and financial reform are advocated.
The latter is to be accomplished without fresh taxation by
the abolition of fiscal privileges, by the establishment of a
national bank, and, if necessary, by the sale of Crown lands,
the raising of loans, and the introduction of a sinking fund.
The doctrine of free trade is supported, the persistent
heresy of the single tax is denounced, and it is laid down that
it should be the duty of wise and enlightened legislation to
assure to everybody the right to work, which is described as
‘the only possession of those who have no property.’

That this should have been the political programme of
an eighteenth-century bishop belonging to the oldest French
nobility may surprise a modern reader. Almost as striking,
however, as the modernity of the views expressed in this
address, is the absence from it of any of those emotional
appeals to sentiment, or vague statements of political
theory, which at that time were even more popular than they
are to-day, and which were particularly noticeable in similar
addresses prepared by other adherents of the Orleanist
faction. Talleyrand, here as ever, confines himself to what
is practicable, and he is careful not to commit himself to any
opinion with regard to the future Constitution of the country,
for his views upon this subject were not those that were
generally popular.

Talleyrand left Autun in the early morning of Easter
Sunday, 12th April 1789. It was said that he was afraid to
officiate in the Cathedral upon so solemn an occasion as
his knowledge of Church ceremonial was quite inadequate,
and he had already in the conduct of such duties committed

3 +

THE REVOLUTION

blunders that had shocked his subordinates. -But tltere were
stronger reasonsj once his work at Autun was accomplishedj
why he should not delay his return to the scene of all his
activities and all his pleasures. Already that scene was being
set for the production of one of the greatest dramas in
history, and we may be sure that as he sped along the road
to the north he threw back no regretful gaze upon the red
roofs of the picturesque little town he was leaving, for it
was with the future that his thoughts were occupied, and he
knew that those spring days were pregnant with events. ’

a

The opening of the States-General took place at Versailles
in the early days of May 1789. The first question that
engaged their attendon was one of procedure, but upon its
settlement the whole future depended. There were three
Orders— the Clergy, the Nobility, and the Third Estate,
who at first, in imitation of the English, were inclined to
style themselves the Commons. The question was, should
the three Orders sit together in one assembly, and vote by
head, or should there be three separate assemblies, each
assembly having one vote ? The Third Estate out-numbered
the other two Orders put together. Upon the decision of
this question, therefore, depended whether the Third
Estate was to be the dominant and decisive factor, or whether
it was to remain an impotent minority of one to two.

It is astonishing that the Government should not have
foreseen that this question was bound to arise, should not
have appreciated its vital importance, and should not have
been prepared with a policy to meet it. The Estates were
left to settle it for themselves.. No suggestion, no advice,
no guidance was given or offered by the Government until
it was too late. From the first the Third Estate stood for

THE REVOLUTION

35

the principle of one assembly, and refused to proceed further
until it was admitted. The Nobility, despite the presence
of a small minority of Liberals, were almost equally solid
on the other side. The Clergy wavered.' They included
among their numbers many representatives of the minor
Clergy, whose lot was as hard and whose grievances were as
pumerous as were those of the Third Estate. This was the
weak spot in the ranks of the two privileged Orders, and it
proved their undoing. Members of the minor Clergy united
themselves with the Third Estate and their example was
gradually followed by more distinguished members of the
hierarchy.

When it became apparent that the victory of the Third
Estate was assured the King attempted to intervene. One
morning when the deputies came to their accustomed meet-
ing-plac^, they found that the doors were shut against them.
They met in the nearest convenient building, a tennis court,
where they took an oath that they would not separate until
their, work was accornplished. It was at this juncture that
the King for the first time informed them that the Three
Orders should sit separately. His authority, which might
have prevailed earlier, was now powerless. The Third
Estate, who had already assumed the title of National
Assembly, had won the day from the moment that the
Clergy yielded. The example of the Clergy was finally
followed by the Nobility. The command of the King was
disfegarded and the Revolution was a fact.

. In this controversy Talleyrand took no open part. While
in favour of reform he was opposed to revolution, and he
saw plainly what the result must be if the Third Estate
obtained control. He would have liked to set up a two^
chamber system on the English model, giving to the Third
Estate the powers of the House of Commons, and dreating
another body composed of the more powerful members of

THE REVOLUTION

36

the Nobility and the heads of the Church, which should
exercise the control over legislation that was still retained
at that time by the House of Lords.

Talleyrand was not among the first of the Clergy, nor
even of the Bishops, to throw in his lot with the Third
Estate. He did so only when the trend of events became
obvious and further resistance would have been useless.
His friend and ally at this period was once more Mirabeau,
who already dominated the Assembly and who shared his
enthusiasm for constitutional monarchy. These two men
would have liked to form a Government under such a
system and to have become the Pitt and Dundas of a slightly
less obstinate and distinctly more progressive George in.
One day Mirabeau was descanting upon the particular
qualities which a minister in such circumstances should
possess, and had enumerated nearly all his own characteristics
■when Talleyrand interrupted with ‘Should you not add
that such a man should be strongly marked by the small-
pox

Events, however, were rapidly passing out of the control
of moderate leaders. Even Mirabeau was powerless to
arrest them. Exactly how far cither he or Talleyrand was
now or later in the counsel or the pay of the Court is difficult
to determine, but it is certain that they both offered the
King advice and that he did not take it.

Talleyrand’s chief channel of communication with Louis
XVI was the latter’s youngest brother, the Count d’Artois,
who exercised some influence both upon the King and
upon Marie Antoinette. His last interview with the Count
took place in July. It was after the fall of the Bastille.
Talleyrand visited him in the dead of night and implored
him to urge upon his brother that the last hope for the
monarchy lay now in the dissolution by royal authority of
the Estates and the resort, if it became necessary, to force.

THE REVOLUTION 37

So impressed was the young Prince by the force of
Talleyrand’s reasoning, that, having already gone to bed,
he dressed again, obtained an audience of the King, and
endeavoured to prevail upon him. But Louis would listen
to no plan that might entail bloodshed. The next morning
the Count d’Artois left France, leading the emigration of
the nobility. He was npt to meet Talleyrand again for
twenty-five years, when he returned in the wake of the
victorious allied forces, to take over the restored kingdom
on behalf of his brother Louis xviii. Talleyrand sent him
a messenger on that occasion to remind him of the mid-
night interview. D’Artois remembered it perfectly and the
first act of the restored dynasty was to take the advice of
the statesman whom they had so disastrously disregarded.
If the Bourbons had learnt nothing else during a quarter
of a century of exile they had at last come to realise that the
counsels of Talleyrand were not to be neglected.

3

Realising now that the preservation of the Monarchy
was no longer possible, Talleyrand determined to preserve
himself. To so clear-sighted an observer of events only
two courses remained open. Either he must throw in his
lot with the emigrating nobility or else he must whole-
heartedly support the Revolution. For the King, who
refused to fight, no hope remained. Revolutions can be
suppressed by force, but they can never be tricked or bribed
into submission.

Talleyrand refused to emigrate although he was urged
to do so by the Count d’Artois and others. His own country,
to which throughout his life he was devoted, still presented
a tempting field for his activities, and one in which he felt
capable of accomplishing much. His political views had

THE REVOLUTION

38

always been pronouncedly liberal. The reforms which he
had advocated at Autun were still to be completed. The
zeal of the reformers had only to be kept within bounds, the
disorders which had already arisen had only to be sup-
pressed, and the great work of regeneration and reconstruc-
tion in which the idealists of 1789 so fervently believed
might be brought to a splendid ^nd peaceful conclusion.

Talleyrand was not an idealist, but he was a .reformer,
and the reforms to which he was committed were those of
which his country stood in urgent need. How great a r 61 e
awaited him in the coming years he could not tell, but when
he measured his own capabilities, of which he was an
accurate judge, with those of his colleagues in the Assembly
he could feel confident of his superiority. So long as a career
remained open, to him in France he refused to leave it, and
for more than' three years after the fall of the Bastille and the
beginning of the emigration he continued to play an im-
portant part in the events that were engaging the world’s
attention.

He had already acquired a reputation for intelligence and
for profligacy. He increased both during the years that
followed. Oratorical abilities, which were the type best
calculated to impress the Assembly, he lacked, but he
possessed an impressive manner, a singularly deep voice,
and he never spoke except when he had something of
importance to communicate.

On loth October 1789 he brought forward a motion
for the transference to the State of all ecclesiastical property.
This was one of the acts of his life which provoked the
deepest indignation at the time, and was subsequently to be
the most frequently quoted against him. The suggestion
itself appeared in the eyes of the faithful to be flagrantly
sacrilegious, and the fact that it came from a churchman and
from a bishop magnified its enormity beyond bounds. It

THE REVOLUTION 39

should, however, be remembered that the Church was rich
and that the State was bankrupt, and that the proposal, as
put forward, was not intended to inflict any real hardship
upon the Church, for the State was to take over the whole
maintenance of the Church, to provide adequately for all
the clergy and to administer such charities as the Church
had hitherto administered. In modern parlance the Church
was not to be robbed but to be nationalised. The proposal
was welcomed by the Assembly, and the position of Talley-
rand was strengthened.

Financial reform and the introduction of universal and
compulsory education were the two other matters which
principally attracted his attention. Both were vital to the
success of the Revolution and the future welfare of France.
He was in favour of a national bank; he was strongly op-
posed to the reckless issue of assignats and spoke against it
in the Assembly. The concluding words of his speech
epitomised the financial argument in a sentence: ‘You can
compel a man to 'accept an assignat for a thousand francs
in payment of that sum of money, but you can never compel
a man to give you a thousand francs in coin in return for an
assignat. ... It is for that reason that the whole system will
fail.’

His Report on Public Education, the reading of which to
the Assembly occupied three days, is admittedly a docu-
ment which marks an epoch in the history of this subject.
Talleyrand’s most violent detractors are unable to withhold
from it their admiration, and have therefore been compelled
to fall back on the assertion that Talleyrand was not the
author. He acknowledges himself that he sought assistance
from all who were most qualified to give it, none of whom
subsequently claimed to have done more than contribute
advice. The present system of pqblic education in France,
which is frequently held up as a model to other countries,

40

THE REVOLUTION

owes much to this report including the creation of the
National Institute.

The abolition of the royal lottery, the emancipation of
the Jews, a proposed Anglo-French Conference for the
stabilisation of weights and measures, these are the sug-
gestions, all severely practical, with which we find the name
of Talleyrand associated at a period when his colleagues of
the Assembly were wasting in windy declamations about the
brotherhood of mankind those precious days that might have
been devoted to the reconstruction of France.

When, however, criticism of the Assembly, which was
beginning to lose its popularity, grew loud, Talleyrand
came forward as its champion, and delivered a speech,
which from an oratorical point of view was his most success-
ful, and in which he justified all that had hitherto been
accomplished and exhorted his audience to continue their
laborious task. In the same month, February 1790, he was
elected President of the Assembly, defeating the Abbd
Siey^s, who was the other candidate, by a large majority.

4

Meanwhile the difficulty of combining in pne individual
the positions of ecclesiastical dignitary and revolutionary
leader was continually increasing. On 14th July 1790 the
Feast of the Federation took place in Paris. It was the
Bishop of Autun who was selected to celebrate mass at the
altar erected in the Champ de Mars in the presence of the
.King and ^ueen, the members of the Assembly, the National
Guard, and an enormous crowd of spectators. All present
swore a solemn oath of fidelity to the Nation, the l.aw, and
the King. Lafayette, Commandant of the National Guard
and popular hero of the moment, was the first to swear.
As he did so the reverend Bishop whispered to him ; ‘Don’t

THE REVOLUTION

make me laugh.’ When the ceremony was over the Bishop
hurried off to a gambling saloon, where he succeeded in
breaking the bank.

The fact that a prelate of such notoriously bad morals
should have been selected to perform such an office upon
such an occasion, proves the difficulty that the Revolution
was already experiencing in finding respectable people to
do its work. Talleyrand’s passion for gambling and specula-
tion was at this time the cause of greater scandal than even
the other forms of pleasure in which he indulged; and he
found himself obliged to publish a denial of certain rumours
which were current as to the large sums that he had recehtly
won. Yet upon an occasion of such great national import-
ance, because a bishop was needed, the authorities were
compelled to apply to the Bishop of Autun.

Already, in May of the same year, the Assembly had
adopted the measure known as ‘the Civil Constitution of
the Clergy.’ This was in effect the logical sequel of the
nationalisation of Church property. It placed the Church
under democratic control, re-organised its establishment,
allowed for the popular election of bishops and carA, and
set at defiance the authority of the Vatican. In June Talley-
rand was the only bishop who continued to sit in the
Assembly.

At the end of the year the Assembly went further and
decreed that the clergy themselves must swear allegiance
to their new Constitution. The vast majority, including, of
course, all those who were the most sincere and generally
respected, refused the oath. Only four prelates, of whom
Talleyrand was one, were found willing to accept it.

This act in itself practically constituted a breach with the
Church, but in the following January (1791) he went
further and formally resigned his bishopric on the ground
that he had been elected one of the administrators of the

42 THE REVOLUTION

Department of Paris, and that it would be’ impossible for
him in the future to devote himself to the affairs of his
diocese.

It would have been better for Talleyrand’s reputation
had his connection with the Church terminated with his
resignation, but unfortunately there remained one further
function in which he was persuaded to take part. The
Assembly, who had no intention at present of departing
from Christianity, were faced with the task of finding recruits
to fill the places of those ecclesiastics who had lost .their
livings rather than violate their consciences. The difficulty
proved not insurmountable, although the new priesthood
had little odour of sanctity about it, and carried small weight
in the minds of religious people.

When, however, it came to appointing substitutes for
the non-juring bishops, the additional obstacle presented
itself that the law of apostolic succession demanded that
any new bishop should be ordained by one who already held
that position. Now, in the case of each of the other three
prelates who had taken the oath, reasons existed why they
could not perform this ceremony of consecration; therefore
recourse was once more had to Talleyrand, who, although
he had already resigned his see and .was in almost open
revolt against his Church, consented to undertake the task,
and performed the extremely sacred ceremony of ordination
for the benefit of three of the newly appointed bishops, who
were thus enabled subsequently to ordain their' colleagues.

The path of allegiance to the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy, given as it had been in open disobedience to the
instructions of the Pope, brought upon Talleyrand the
anathema of Roriie. In April he was formally excom-
municated. He offered no excuse and no defence, but wrote
to the Duke de Biron, one of his companions in pleasure and
colleagues in politics: ‘Have you heard that I have been

THE REVOLUTION

43

excommunicated ? Come and console me by having supper
with me. Every one must refuse me fire and water, so this
evening we will have cold meat and iced wine.’

Shortly afterwards, when the question was debated in
the Assembly whether those priests who had refused the
oath should be allowed to perform religious services,
Talleyrand spoke eloquently on their behalf. It was non-
sense, he contended, to limit the doctrine of freedom of
opinion to a man’s private thoughts. If in the new era of
liberty men were to be allowed to think as they pleased,
they must also be allowed by their actions to show what
they thought. For himself, he was glad that he had taken
the oath, although it had brought excommunication upon
him. He believed that the Constitutional Church repre-
sented the purest form of the Catholic religion. Whatever
the present Pope might do, that Church would remain
attached to the Holy See, and would await with confidence
a change of opinion either in him or in his successors.

The speech was characteristic of one who at times of
violent commotion was capable of taking calm and long views,
and who under personal affront was strangely incapable of
bearing malice.

5

There was at this time living in Paris an Ajnerican
gentleman named Gouverneur Morris. He was a man of
considerable intelligence, some experience of public affairs,
especially of their financial side, and having warmly es-
poused the cause of the colonists in the American War of
Independence, he retained a cynically aristocratic view of
life and a profound contempt for democratic theories. He
was also a man of courage and resource. Later on, when
JeffersonTeft Paris for a safer place, Morris was appointed
American Minister, and he was the only foreign repre-

THE REVOLUTION

+4

sentative who remained at his post throughout the worst
days of the Terror. On one occasion when he found himself
the centre of a hostile mob in favour of hanging him on the
nearest lamp-post as an Englishman and a spy, he unfastened
hi's wooden leg, brandished it above his head, and pro-
claimed himself an American -who had lost a limb fighting
for liberty. The mob’s suspicions .melted into enthusiastic
cheers, but, as a matter of fact, he had never fought for
liberty nor for anything else, and had lost his leg as the
result of a carriage accident.

Gouverneur Morris loved pleasure as much as he loved
business — and he also loved the beautiful Countess de
Flahaut. She was a young woman, the wife of an old hus-
band, the daughter of a former mistress of Louis xv and
herself the acknowledged mistress of Talleyrand. She. lived
in an apartment in the ancient palace of the Louvre which
had come to her- as the reward of her mother’s frailty; and
here she almost daily entertained her admirers.

We are inclined when we think of the French Revolu-
tion to imagine Paris in a state of continual turmoil and
confusion, with angry mobs prowling the streets and tearing
aristocrats in pieces, from the taking of the Bastille in the
summer of 1.789 until the end of the Terror in the summer
of 1794. In reality, however, during the first three years
of this period the life of the ordinary Parisian continued to
be very much the same as usual. The shadow of the Revolu-
tion hung over everything, the glamour of the Court had
gone, the rumour of great events was in the air, but there
were still dinner-parties and dances, gambling and love-
making and political intrigue, and the general atmosphere
must have been very similar to that which prevailed in
London during the Great War. Lady Sutherland, the
British Ambassadress, wrote from Paris in December 1790;
‘The tranquillity of France is but little disturbed notwith-

THE REVOLUTION 45

standing the wonderful changes that have of late hap-
pened. ... In short this world is grown very dull.’

Of this life, as it was lived by those who pursued both
politics and pleasure, we can obtain a very vivid picture
from the diary which Gouverneur Morris kept from day
to day. From the same source we are provided with an
intimate sidelight upon the life of Talleyrand, for the two
nien met regularly in the apartment of the woman they
both loved.

Talleyrand was in the stronger position of these two
lame lovers, for he had been first in the field and the lady
had already borne him a son, who had indeed been, recognised
by her husband, but as to whose parentage nobody then or
afterwards ever, entertained the slightest doubt. This son
became in course of time an aide-de-camp to Napoleon, the
lover of the Queen Hortense, the father by her of the Duke
de Morny, the husband of an English heiress, and the
grandfather of the fifth Lord Lansdowne. He died in 1870
on the eve of the battle of Sedan.

The first reference to Talleyrand in the diary is dated
14th October 1789 — ‘Go to dine at Madame de F.’s. She
receives a note from the Bishop of Autun, He is to dine
with her at half-past five. She insists that I shall leave her
at five. I put on a decent show of coldness ... we are to
dine a trio with the Bishop to-morrow.' Henceforth 'the
Bishop’ appears almost daily in the record of Gouverneur
Morris’s life. Sometimes he is spoken of with bitterness
as the object of j^ousy, at others with satisfaction as being
subject to it himself. But upon the whole it is plain that
Madame de Flahaut achieved that rare and difficult triumph
so dear to the heart of the intelligent coquette, she made her
two lovers not only tolerate but like one another, and was
able to pass her time agreeably in the presence of both.
‘Madame de Flahaut’s countenance glows with satisfaction

'46 THE REVOLUTION

in looking at the Bishop and myself as we sit together,
agreeing in sentiment and supporting^the opinions of each
other. What a triumph for a woman. I leave her to go home
with him.’

On 9th November of the same year he dined at the house
of Monsieur Necker, the celebrated Minister of Finance
and father of Madame de Stagl, to whom, at ,this time,
Talleyrand was making advances. Morris sat next to her
at dinner. ‘Much conversation about the Bishop d’Autun,’
he records. *I desire her to let me know if he succeeds,
because I will, in such case, make advantage of such intel-
ligence in making my court to Madame de F. A'proposition
more whimsical could hardly be made to a woman.’

At this time Talleyrand was still envisaging a ministerial
portfolio, a prospect that was frustrated by a resolution of
the Assembly which forbade its members to accept office.
Morris advises him with regard to his speeches in the
Assembly, and finds him reluctant to act upon the advice,
for; ‘He has something of the author about him; but the
tender attachment to our literary productions is by no means
suitable to a minister.’ This evidence is interesting in the
light of accusations frequently made later, that Talleyrand
always made use of others in the composition of his speeches
and despatches.

At the beginning of 1790 Morris meets ‘the mother of
the Bishop d’Autun. She is highly aristocratic; she says
that the great of this country who have favoured the Revolu-
tion are taken in, and I think that she is not much mistaken
in that idea.’

In January jjgi' we find Madame de Flahaut 'complain-
ing bitterly of the Bishop of Autun’s cold cruelty. . . . He
treats her ill. His passion for play has become extreme and
she gives me instances which are ridiculous.’ Nevertheless
a few days later, being Engaged in the matter of consecrat-

THE REVOLUTION

47

ing the new bishops and in serious fear of his life, he made a
will in favour of Madame de-Flahaut and left it witli her,
to her great alarm, on the eve of performing the ceremony.

After an intimate acquaintance of some three years,
Morris’s considered opinion of Talleyrand is summed up in
a semi-ofEcial letter addressed to Washington. He has just
mentioned the names of Narbonne and Choiseul, and he
adds to them that of Talleyrand: ‘These three are young
men of high family, men of wit and men of pleasure. The
two former were' men of fortune but had spent it. They
were intimates all three and had run the career of ambition
together to retrieve their affairs. On the score of morals
neither of them is exemplary. The Bishop is particularly
blamed on that head; not so much for adultery, because that
was common enough among the clergy of high rank,- but
for the variety and publicity of his amours, for gambling,
and above all for stockjobbing during the ministry of M. de
Calonne, with whom he was on the best of terms, and there-
fore had opportunities which his enemies say he made no
small ufe of. However, I do not believe in this, and I think
that, except his gallantries and a mode of thinking rather
too liberal for a churchman, the charges are unduly
aggravated.’

6

In June 1791 the royal family attempted to escape from
France. They were recognised at Varennes and reconducted
to Paris. Such an event might .have been expected to entail
the immediate downfall of the monarchy; but the time was
not yet ripe for a republic. The upper and middle class
supporters of the Revolution began to be alarmed. A new
club, the Feuillants, came into existence. It represented the
moderate element and sought to counterbalance the Jacobins.
Talleyrand was a member. They were few in number but

i|8 THE REVOLUTION

Strong in talent and it seemed at first that they were likely
to prove victorious. The newspaper of Marat was sup-
pressed, many of the extremists went into hiding, Danton,
the brazen-lunged apostle of audacity, fled the country.
The Assembly decreed a new Constitution in, which the
power and the prestige of the King were increased rather
than diminished. Amid scenes of enthusiasm the King
accepted the Constitution: the Constituent Assembly, its
work accomplished, was dissolved, and none of its members
were permitted to belong to the new I..egislative Assembly
which took its place.

Ta-lleyrand having ceased to be a member of the Assembly
and still debarred from accepting office under the crown,
now found himself unemployed in a Paris where it was no
longer pleasant to be idle. A Feuillant Government was in
power and his friend Narbonne was Minister for War, so
that he had every reason to expect that some use would be
found for his services. Gouverneur Morris advised him to
apply for the post of Ambassador at Vienna, suggesting that
as the link of communication between Marie Antoinette
and her brother tlie Emperor, he would be ‘in the straight
road to greatness.’

But Talleyrand had other views both regarding the road
to greatness and the orientation of French diplomacy.
In April 1791 Mirabeau, exhausted by excess of work and
excess of dissipation, had died, and Talleyrand, who had
been with him to the last, and had pronounced hjs funeral
oration, felt that the mantle of his friend had fallen upon
him. It might have been the mission of Mirabeau to carry
into the conduct of foreign affairs the true spirit of 1789
which was a s^iirit of peace rather than of war. He had seen
plainly that the great task of reconstruction at home could
be accomplished only if peace were maintained abroad, and
he had been prepared to adopt, as the guiding principle of

THE REVOLUTION

49

his foreign policy, the welfare of the people rather than the
ambition for territorial expansion. He had favoured from
the first an alliance with England, realising that there can
never exist security for either country except upon the basis
of permanent and solid friendship.

Talleyrand belonged to the same school of political
thought. Child of the eighteenth century and disciple of
Voltaire, he loved the substantial blessings of peace, and
despised the fustian heroics of* war. The necessity of an
understanding with England was as evident to his dear
vision as the rumours about Pitt's spies were absurd. The
desire for peace, and the promotion of an Anglo-French
alliance as the surest way of obtaining it, provide the main
clue to consistency throughout a long career that has become
a by-word for tergiversation. The glamour of Napoleon’s
conquests, which still exercises so powerful a fascination
over romantic minds, was powerless to excite the enthusiasm
of a philosophical statesman who travelled over the field
of Austerlitz on the morrow of the battle with feelings only
of horror and disgust. As early as 1 786 he had welcomed the
Commercial Treaty between England and France, and fifty
years later his last public service was to secure an under-
standing between the Governments of Louis-Philippe and
William iv. In a letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
at the period with which we are now dealing, he wrote:
‘Two neighbouring nations, one of which formds its pros-
perity principally upon commerce and the other upon
agriculture, are called upon by the eternal nature of things
to have good understanding and mutually to enrich one
another.’

Meanwhile the Revolution was moving daily in the
direction of war. The same policy recommended itself to
the various parties for different reasons. The extremists
wanted, in the words of Merlin de Thionville, ‘to declare

THE REVOLUTION

war on the kings and peace with the nations’~the Girondins
believed that war would mean the downfall of the King and
the logical fulfilment of the revolutionary ideal. The
Feuillant Government hoped that war— a nice, small war
directed if possible only against the Elector of Trier for
having been too kind to the Smigris—vroxild restore their
credit, enable them to remove the King from Paris and con-
tinue to carry on his Government with the assistance of the
army. The King and Queen, who were now very near to
despair, saw in the advent of a foreign invader the last
hope of deliverance from the hands of their own people.

Narbonne and de Lessart, a nonentity who was now
Minister for Foreign Affairs, were, however, fully alive to
the importance, which doubtless Talleyrand impressed upon
th-em, of securing the neutrality of England or, if possible,
an alliance, before engaging in any Continental complica-
tions. It was in order to achieve this object that in January
1792 Talleyrand departed upon a mission to London.

Owing to his having sat in the Assembly he was still
precluded froni receiving any official status. He was, how-
ever, provided with the necessary letters to members of the
British Government calculated to assure him a reception
and a hearing. Officially the object of the mission was the
purchase of horses for the French army and the head of it was
Talleyrand’s intimate friend the Duke de Biron.

Biron, who is better known under his earlier title of
Lauzun,. had a reputation for gallantry which exceeded that
of all competitors. His name had been associated with those
of the Empress of Russia and the Queen of France, and
English readers may be interested to remember that it was
for this handsome Frenchman that the beautiful Lady
Sarah Lennox, who had turned the young head of George
III, formed so passionate an attachment that she was pre-
pared to leave her husband on his behalf. He was as brave

THE REVOLUTION

51

a soldier as he was adventurous a lover. Having fought for
American independence and having always proclaimed
liberal sentiments, he embraced the cause of the Revolution
from the first, commanded one of the earliest revolutionary
armies, and perished by the guillotine, going to his death
as gaily as he had gone through his life, and sharing a
bottle of wine with his executioner.

Two more aristocratic representatives of a revolutionary
Government could hardly have been imagined than the
pair that arrived in Golden Square on the. evening of 24th
January 1792. They appeared, upon the surfape, to possess
all the qualities which were likely to recommend them to
the fashionable society of the day; but their mission was
foredoomed to failure.

The French Revolution was never popular in England,
nor was its unpopularity restricted to the wealthy and the
privileged class. It was new, it was strange, it was foreign,
it was irreligious, and it was French. After the execution of
Louis XVI in the following year, outbursts of feeling in
England led to riots that endangered the lives and property
of the upper and middle-class Radicals who werg the only
friends of th'e Revolution in the country. Then the Jacobin,
like the modern Bolshevik, became an object of contempt to
the healthy, and a bogey of fear to the nervous part of the
nation. Already the greatest of political pamphlets had
been launched against the Revolution, and had made an
instantaneous and ineffaceable appeal to all who could read
or think. Burke’s Reflections were written before any of the
worst excesses, which he prophesied, had occurred, and
neither the cheap rhetoric of Tom Paine nor the reasoned
dullness of Sir James Macintosh could wipe out the deep
impression it had made.

Readers of Burke had met in London many members of
the French nobility, who had fled e^rly from the wrath to

THE REVOLUTION

52

come. Their courage and gaiety in misfortune had won for
them friends and supporters who, while still able to sym-
pathise with the poor peasantry of France, whom misery
had goaded into rebellion, could feel nothing but loathing
and contempt for renegades and profligates such as Talley-
rand and Biron, who seemed to have been false to their
King, their religion, and their caste.

It was doubtless owing to the machinations of his fellow
countrymen that Biron shortly after arrival found himself
arrested for debt, a predicament into which the heroes of
English eighteenth-century fiction are continually falling,
and from which, as readers of that fiction are aware, extrica-
tion was fraught with difficulties. The mission being
unofficial, Biron possessed no diplomatic status which would
have protected him, and Talleyrand had considerable trouble
before he succeeded in securing the release of his friend.

The social position of the mission which had begun badly
was thus rendered worse. The English people never gave
much for a foreign Duke, and such a Duke emerging from
a sponging house lost any hope of consideration in their
eyes. , Later in the year when it was known that the members
of the French Legation had arrived at Ranelagh all ways
were cleared at their approach, people shrank from them as
though they bore the plague, and the situation became so
unpleasant that they were compelled to retire, when it was
noticed thaf Talleyrand was the only member of the party
who betrayed not .the slightest sign of confusion.

The failure of the mission was as complete in the political
as in the social sphere. France had nothing to offer —
although Talleyrand was later empowered to suggest
certain colonial concessions, such as the island of Tobago —
and England had everything to give. In fact, the neutrality
which Talleyrand hoped to secure was exactly the policy
which Pitt was determined to pursue, but. he was actually

THE REVOLUTION 53

determined to keep a free hand, and not to make any rash
commitments to a Power which, according to the generally
accepted diplomatic opinion of the day, was not likely,
owing to its internal disorders, to play any important part
in Europe for many years to come.

George iii received Talleyrand and was barely civil; the
Queen received him and turned her back. This virtuous
couple, who were scandalised by the private life of Fox
and shuddered at the name of Wilkes, were hardly likely to
accord a hearty welcome to one who was not only a notorious
libertine, but also a supporter of revolution and an excom-
municated priest. Pitt received him and was as stiff as only
Pitt could be, although he condescended to remember early
days when they had met as youths in the house of Talley-
rand’s uncle, the Archbishop of Rheims. Finally, he was
received by Grenville, the Secretafy of State for Foreign
Affairs, who listened in silence to all he had to say.

The British Foreign Office has always been shy of the
semi-official, and the task of Talleyrand, bearing only the
dubious credentials of a tottering Government, was hopeless
from the first. For nearly an hour he talked to Grenville,
endeavouring to persuade him that accounts of the disorders
in France were much exaggerated’ and that the present
Government was firmly established; reminding him that it
was not for England to condemn revolutions, and eagerly
disavowing all intention of political propaganda.

He even resorted to the argumentum ad hotninem^ and said
that, while he would hesitate to make such an appeal to an
older minister, Grenville’s youth — he was only thirty-two —
encouraged the hope that he would take an enlightened
view of the situation, which would redound to his future
glory. Talleyrand did not know that Grenville had never
been young, and that glory was not sufficiently substantia]
to form one of the objects of his ambition.

THE REVOLUTION

S4

He ended by proposing that the two Governments should
mutually guarantee all one another’s territorial possessions,
botli European and colonial, hoping in this way to provide
Great Britain with a valuable reassurance with regard to
Ireland, which at that time fepresented the weak spot
in British defence. He suggested that Grenville should not
answer him immediately, but should think over what he
had said and receive him again, to which Grenville agreed.
At a second interview he was informed that, while the British
Government had no intention of departing from their policy
of neutrality with regard to France and were filled with the
best intentions towards her, they could not enter into any
definite undertakings or even negotiate with an envoy who
was not properly accredited.

Talleyrand had not made a good impression either in
public or private. Grenville considered him deep and
dangerous, and those who met him were struck by the cold
impassivity and haughty reserve of his manner. The English
expect a Frenchman to be gay and animated, just as the
French expect an Englishman to be morose and taciturn.
The English resent a silent Frenchman and the French dis-
trust a loquacious Englishman,

Despite his failure Talleyrand was not discouraged. He
avoided Court and Government circles in which the recep-
tion accorded him by the King and Queen had set the
fashion, but continued to frequent the Opposition, making
friends particularly with Lord Shelburne, a statesman whose
breadth of mind and length of vision commanded his respect,
and whose aristocratic exclusiveness, in combination with
advanced liberal opinions, provided exactly the atmosphere
in which Talleyrand was most at home.

He still believed firmly in the possibility of an Anglo-
French alliance, felt confident that with time he could achieve
it, and wrote home urging that a fully accredited repre-

THE REVOLUTION

55

sentative should be sent as the titular head of tlie mission
who would in reality act under his instructions. In order
to press his views more forcibly upon Ministers he returned
to Paris early in March, only to find on his arrival that the
Government had fallen, that the Minister for Foreign
Affairs was accused of treason, and that the Girondins were
in power.

7

The new Minister for Foreign Affairs was -Dumouriez,
an intelligent adventurer to whom the Revolution seemed to
offer a last opportunity of retrieving the failure of his life.
Dumouriez had a more definite, and a more practicable,
foreign policy than his predecessor. He was determined to
strike at Austria, the ancient enemy of France and the
modern opponent of the Revolution. He had decided to
strike at her through the Belgian provinces, which were
now an Austrian possession, and he realised that, if he weie
to do so successfully, he must first secure at least the
neutrality of England. He was sufficiently acquainted with
European history and politics to appreciate that any inter-
ference with the Low Countries was bound to arouse
immediately the anxious attention of England; but he had
worked out in his own mind a reconstituted map of Europe
in which an independent state of Belgium should afford
Great Britain a safer guarantee of neutrality than the Austrian
provinces could ever do, and in which a firm alliance between
the two great western Powers based upon their common
form of government, constitutional monarchy, and cemented
by a commercial treaty, should provide the world with a
guarantee of peace. The vision of Dumouriez became a
fact in the course of time, but .not until he himself had
disappeared from the scene, and only as the result of twenty
years of warfare.

56

THE REVOLUTION

The question of appointing a representative in London
arose immediately. Talleyrand was plainly designated for
the post and was anxious to return to it. Paris was already
becoming a dangerous habitation for a man of his ante-
cedents. Dumouriez had no liking for Talleyrand, whom
he felt to be his intellectual as well as his social superior,
and would rather have appointed some obscure creature of
his own who would have acted as an unquestioning tool
of the type with which he proceeded to fill the French
chancelleries throughout Europe. But circumstances were
too strong for him, and he reluctantly consented to Talley-
rand’s return. He took with him as the official head of the
mission the youthful Marquis de Chauvelin, and the pair
of them arrived in London at the end of April. Meanwhile
France had declared war on Austria.

The situation in which Talleyrand now found himself
was even more difficult than that in which he had been
placed at the beginning of the year. Pitt was as anxious to
avoid war as he had ever been; Talleyrand was as sincere in
his repudiation of all forms of propaganda and in his assur-
ances as to the pacific intentions of the French Government.
But already the ‘war on kings’ had been declared in the
Assembly; already the missionary spirit 'was abroad In the
streets of Paris and finding noisy utterance in the press;
already the first soldiers of the revolutionary crusade had
crossed the frontier into the Low Countries; and already the
English people were irritated, indignant, and alarmed.
Wise and moderate individuals were still struggling for
peace, but ignorant and passionate mobs were sweeping all
obstacles before them as'*they surged irresistibly forward
to their own destruction in war.

The reception which .George ni accorded to Chauvelin
was hardly warmer than that which Talleyrand had received.
The King knew how much weight to attach to a letter from

THE REVOLUTION 57

Louis XVI which the new Minister- brought with him; and
the publication of the text of this letter in the French press
before its presentation only increased the contempt of
English official circles for the manner in which the French
Government now conducted their foreign relations. On
25th May, however, the British Government officially
announced their determination to maintain a neutral at-
titude with regard to the hostilities that had broken out
between France and Austria. This declaration might have
been accounted a triumph for Talleyrand. Dumouriez
accepted it as such and conveyed his warm congratulations
to Chauvelin. But in fact neither Talleyrand nor Chauvelin
were in any way responsible for the policy tipon which Pitt
had long been determined, and which he would have pur-
sued with the same tenacity whoever had been representing
France at the Court of St. James’s.

In Paris events were moving with increasing rapidity.
Louis, on the advice of Dumouriez, dismissed his Girondin
Ministers, and Dumouriez transferred himself from Foreign
Affairs to the Ministry of War and thence to the command
of the troops in the field. The Girondins, furious at their
dismissal, joined with the Jacobins in planning insur-
rection, and at their instigation the mob invaded the Tuile-
ries, when only the cool courage of the King preserved him-
self and his family from massacre. The position abroad of
the representatives of a king who had lost all semblance
of authority in his own capital became increasingly difficult,
and at the beginning of July Talleyrand returned once more
to Paris.

The days of the monarchy were now numbered. On loth
August the Tuileries were invaded for the second time, the
Swiss Guards were massacred, and the royal family took
refuge with the Legislative Assembly, who finally im-
prisoned them in the Temple. The stern disapproval with

THE REVOLUTION

58

which these developments were naturally regarded by all
the monarchical Governments of Europe aroused con-
sternation in those revolutionary leaders who were capable
of appreciating the dangers attendant upon 'the isolated
position into which France was gradually drifting. In these
circumstances the pen of Talleyrand was employed to draw
up a reasoned defence of the events of loth August for
communication to foreign Powers. The line adopted in this
document was to lay the blame for what had taken place
upon Louis himself. He was accused of having betrayed
the new Constitution and of having bribed others to do the
same.

It was indeed the case that Louis had never considered
himself bound by the oaths which he had given under com-
pulsion and from any observance of which he had been
absolved by the Pope. It was true also that he had made
secret payments to many politicians, including, in all
probability, the new Minister for Justice, Danton, who did
not, however, attain even to the Tammany definition of an
honest man, as he was not one who would ‘stay bought,’

By lending his hand, however, to the drafting of this
justification Talleyrand committed himself further than he
had ever done before, or was to do again, to the advanced
stages of the Revolution. He used to plead in later years
that, so tremendous was the excitement of these times, men
were hardly responsible for their actions. It would indeed
have required more than ordinary courage to refuse to under-
take this task when requested to do so by the Government.
The life of a former bishop and a born aristocrat, most of
whose relatives had already emigrated, was not too secure in
Paris on the morrow of the assault on the Tuileries and on
the eve of the September massacres.

It may have been at the request of Danton, the real head'
of the new Government, that Talleyrand undertook the

THE REVOLUTION

59

task. In any case it was to Danton that he now turned for
assistance in the vital matter of leaving the country. It was
from Danton ’s own hand, in the Ministry of Justice, which
stood then where it stands to-day, in the Place Venddme,
that Talleyrand received his passport at one o’clock in the
morning of the first of September. On the following day
the massacres began.

Chapter Three

EXILE

I,

O N the road that runs from Leatherhead to Dorking there
stands an eighteenth-century residence which, although it
has undergone considerable alterations, still bears the name
of Juniper Hall. Here, in the summer of 1792, was formed
the nucleus of a small society of French refugees. The
Constitutionals— the Liberals— those members of the aristo-
cracy who if they had not welcomed the Revolution had at
least tried to make the best of it, and who, only after the fall
of the monarchy and under the shadow of the Terror,
abandoned their country in order to save their lives, found at
Juniper Hall a l3rief haven of refuge. They were all poor,'
temporarily they were all ruined; they had all suffered, and
were still suffering the loss of friends and relatives by
massacre or execution, and yet they contrived for some
months in this quiet Surrey residence to lead a life of such
charm, gaiety, and elegance that those of their neighbours
who were admitted into their circle felt that they were
obtaining a glimpse of a civilisation superior to anything
that contemporary England could show.

The Princess d’H^nin, who had enjoyed with her young
husband the reputation of being the handsomest couple
ever seen at the Court of Versailles, was one of those who
dispensed hospitality at Juniper Hall. She had been lady-
in-waiting to the Queen, and together with three other
intimate friends, the Princess de Poix, the Duchess de

60

EXILE 6i

Biroiij and the Princess de Bouillon, had formed a coterie
in Paris which, owing to their position, their intelligence,
and their unwavering loyalty to one another, had exercised
for a period the most powerful influence in French society.
Although she was now middle-aged she was still beautiful,
and her faithful lover Lally Tollendal, whom she eventually
married, was seldom absent from her side.

Here also was the witty Countess de la Chdtre, who, in the
words of the Chancellor Pasquier, was not a lady ‘whose
austerity was oppressive,’ and who had come to England in
order to be with the Marquis de Jaucourt, who had played
a distinguished part in the earlier days of the Constituent
Assembly, and who was to act as Minister for Foreign
Affairs in Paris when Talleyrand was taking part in the
Congress of Vienna.

And here also for a short period came Madame de StaSl
with Narbonne, whom she loved, and whom by her courage
and devotion, together with the discreet exercise of her
diplqmatic privileges, she had delivered from the hands of
the patriots of Paris when they were hunting for him under
her roof.

In this society Talleyrand was, of course, welcome. He
took a small house in Woodstock Street, Kensington, where
Madame de la ChStre presided, but’ he was a frequent
visitor at Juniper Hall, and we can learn the impression
that he made upon a stranger and a foreigner at this period,
thanks to the facile pen of Fanny Burney.

Not far from Juniper Hall there resided in the village of
Mickleham one of the many daughters of Dr. Burney, the
teacher and historian of music, who was a familiar figure
in most social and intellectual circles of the time. To Mrs.
Susanna Phillips and her unmarried sister Fanny, who was
frequently staying with her, the advent of this remarkable
French colony was an event of importance. The world was

62

EXILE

filled with rumours of the strange and terrible things that
were happening in France. Diaries and letters of the time
prove that events in Paris formed then the principal subject
of conversation and of correspondence. And suddenly
there descended upon these rural, almost surburban, sur-
roundings a flight of astonishing and charming people,
bearing the most magnificent titles, who not only came direct
from the scene of the great drama, but who had also, them-
selves, played leading parts in it.

Mrs. Phillips lost no time in calling upon them, and
wrote enthusiastic and detailed accounts of their witty and
charming conversation to her sister Fanny, mentioning
particularly a certain Monsieur d’Arblay, who possessed
from the first a romantic interest in the eyes of the sisters,
from having served as Adjutant-General under the still
popular hero Lafayette. Fanny hastened down to Surrey
in order to share in the delights described, and sent to her
father and other correspondents reports as rapturous as
those of Susanna. ‘There can be nothing imagined rnore
charming, more fascinating than this colony’; ‘a society of
incontestable superiority’; ‘these people of a thousand’;
‘they are a marvellous set for excess of agreeability’; ‘English
has nothing to do with elegance such as theirs.’ She can
think and write of nothing else and her testimony to the
unusual charm which these people exercised is of value, for
she was not a fool, she was no longer in hef first youth, she
had seen the best society and heard the finest conversation
of her time. She had been often in the company and had
earned the approval of Dr. Johnson.

she was prejudiced against Talleyrand before she met
him, for already his wickedness was becoming a legend.
‘Monsieur de Talleyrand,’ she writes, ‘opened last night
with infinite wit and capacity. Madame de Stafil whispered
to me: “How do you like him?’’ “Not very much,”" I

EXILB 63

answered. . . . “Oh, I assure you,” cried she, “he is the
best of the men.” I was happy not to agree.’

But a few days later: ‘It is inconceivable what a convert
M. de Talleyrand has made of me. I think him now one of
the finest members and one of the most charming of this
exquisite set. Susanna is as completely a proselyte. His
powers of entertainment are astonishing, both in information
and in raillery. . . .’

And here is a little picture that is worth preserving,
drawn by the pen of Susanna Phillips. Lally Tollendal,
‘large, fat, with a great head, small nose, immense cheeks . . .
un trh honnite gar^on, as Monsieur de Talleyrand says of
him, etrien de -plus' —'h2\\y Tollendal had written a tragedy,
La Mart de Strafford. It was to be read aloud to the com-
pany after dinner. Dinner was very gay but at the end of it
Monsieur d’Arblay unaccountably disappeared. ‘He was
sent for after coffee several times that the tragedy might be
begun; and at last Madame de Stadl impatiently proposed
beginning without him: 'Mats cela lui f era de la pettte,' said
M. de Talleyrand good-naturedly, and as she persisted, he
rose up and limped out of the room to fetch him; he suc-
ceeded in bringing him.’

While Susanna watched with eyes of guileless admiration
the kindly Bishop limping out to fetch his friend, may we
be permitted to wonder whether there was not underlying
the action a spice of malice which was hidden from that
innocent gaze? It may be that neither Talleyrand nor
d’Arblay, the one a card-player, the other a soldier, was
looking forward with enthusiasm to an evening spent in
listening to Lally Tollendal reading his tragedy aloud. But
Talleyrand was determined that if lue were captured, d’Arblay
was not going to escape. And so with ironic courtesy-^a
species of humour in which he excelled— he made sure that
the tragedy should not begin until d’Arblay was in his place.

64 EXILE

Indeed there was much that went on at Juniper Hall to
which the sisters Burney were remarkably blind. Prim
little figures, they had wandered but of the sedate drawing-
rooms of Sense and Sensibility and were in danger of losing
themselves in the elegantly disordered alcoves of Les
Liaisons Dangereuses.

Dire was their distress and deep their indignation when
the benevolent Dr. Burney first sounded a warning note.
Fanny’s enthusiasm for Madame de StaSl, a fellow authoress
and one of world-wide reputation, had been received with'
the most appreciative tenderness by that large-hearted lady,
and there had been an invitation to stay for two or three
weeks which had dutifully been referred to Dr. Burney
before acceptance. The Doctor did not forbid, but neither
did he encourage it. ‘Madame de StaSl,’ he wrote, ‘has
been accused of partiality to M. de Narbonne — but perhaps
all may be Jacobinical maligt\ity.’

Fanny was inexpressibly shocked. ‘I do firmly believe
it a gross calumny,' she writes. ‘She loves him even tenderly,
but so openly, so simply, so unaffectedly, and with such
utter freedom from all coquetry, that, if they were two men
or two women, the affection could not, I think, be more
obviously undesigning. She is very plain, he is very hand-
some; her intellectual endowments must be with him her
sole attraction. She seems equally attached to M. de Talley-
rand. . . . Indeed I think you could not spend a day with
them and not see that their commerce is that of pure but
exalted and most elegant friendship. I would, nevertheless,
give the world to avoid being a guest under their roof, now
I have heard even the shadow of such a rumour.’

As all the ladies at Juniper Hall had been living from the
first quite openly with their lovers, Madame de Stafil was
naturally perplexed by the sudden coolness which succeeded
Fanny’s fervent admiration. But the little coterie wai soon

EXILE

65

dispersed, all except M, d’Arblay, whose intentions proved
honourable and were rewarded, so that he remained to live
in England as the husband of Miss Burney.

One cause that may have hastened Talleyrand’s departure
from France was the knowledge that when the Tuileries
were sacked on loth August there had been discovered a
carefully concealed iron box which contained the secret
correspondence of the King. The only evidence that was
produced which would implicate Talleyrand was a letter
from a third party stating that he was anxious to place his
services at the King’s disposal, and that he had authorised
the writer to say so. This, however, was sufficient to secure
his condemnation by the Convention on 5th December
1792, a sentence against which he despatched a vehement
protest that was duly printed in the Moniteur.

Before it reached France there appeared in the same
publication another and equally energetic defence of
Talleyrand over the initial ‘D.’ Who his defender may have
been remains uncertain, but there is strong reason to suppose
that it was no less a person than Danton himself. Amongst
other arguments that the writer in question produces to
prove the innocence of Talleyrand -is the statement that on
the very day of his condemnation the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs had received from him, from London, a political
memorandum which expressed the ‘purest revolutionary
principles.’ Now it so happens that among Danton’s papers,
after his death, there was found such a memorandum, signed
by Talleyrand, and dated 25th November. ‘

The contents of this document are of profound interest
to the student of Talleyrand’s foreign policy, and provide an
invaluable testimony to the perspicacity of his vision and the

66

EXILE

consistency of his views. The new France that has been
created by the Revolution must, he maintains, adopt a new
policy which will be in accordance with the philosophy of
her Constitution. The basis of this policy must be the
abandonment of the old ambition to be the greatest Power
in Europe and of the old endeavour to acquire aggrandise-
ment of territory. ‘We have learnt, a little late no doubt,
that for States as for individuals real wealth consists not in
acquiring or invading the domains of others, but in develop-
ing one’s own. We have learnt that all extensions of territory,
all usurpations, by force or by fraud, which have long been
connected by prejudice with the idea of ‘rank,’ of ‘hege-
mony,’ of ‘political stability,’ of ‘superiority’ in the order of
the Powers, are only the cruel jests of political lunacy, false
estimates of power, and that their real effect is to increase
the difficulty of administration and to diminish the happiness
and security of the governed for the passing interest or for
the vanity of those who govern. . . . France ought, there-
fore, to remain within her own boundaries, she owes it to
her glory, to her sense of justice and of reason, to her own
interest and to that of the other nations who will become
free.’

Remembering that these were, and remained, the sincere
opinions of Talleyrand, we shall find it easier to understand
why it became impossible for him to act as the faithful
Foreign Minister of Napoleon.

He goes on, in the same paper, to discuss what alliances
it will be desirable for France to conclude. In future, all
such alliances should be of a purely defensive character,
and should be restricted to those states upon her own
borders' which, following her example, will have adopted a
free Constitution. The alliance with England, which he con-
sidered so important in the past as a counterweight to the
family interests of the Bourbons, will be less needed in tiie

' EXILE

67

future, and the two countries should concentrate upon
industrial and commercial agreements. Their main object
should be free commerce between both countries and their
respective colonies. Already he has realised the potential
markets for European goods that the development of these
colonies will offer, and the vision inspires him with the
further ambition to liberate the vast Spanish possessions in
South America, and to impose upon them the policy of the
open door.

‘The vessels,’ he writes, ‘of France and of England
united will throw open to free trade that vast part of the
western world which lies in the Pacific Ocean and in the
South Seas.’ This was the very policy towards which Castle-
reagh was gradually moving at the time of his death, thirty
years later, and which Canning subsequently crystallised in
an historic phrase when he claimed to have ‘called the new
world into existence in order to redress the balance of the
old.’

3

In Loijdon Talleyrand moved in a restricted circle. He
had been careful to make it plain to the Government upon
arrival, that* he no longer held any, even semi-official,
appointment. But he had a reputation for depth and
cunning, so that he was regarded with suspicion in official
quarters. Socially, he was still the object of hostility to all
the earlier-arrived emigrants; and fashionable society, slow
to realise the full importance of the events that had taken
place in the summer of 1791, continued to regard him as
one who had taken part in the Revolution and who had
recently come to England as its representative. ‘Did I tell
you,’ writes Lady Stafford to Granville Leveson-Gower,
‘that the Evfique d’Autun is here, by the name of Mons,
Talleyrand-P^rigord ? He is a disagreeable-looking man,

68

EXILE

has a baddish, tricking character, and supposed not very
upright in disposition or heart.’ And Gouverneur Morris
on a visit to LxDndon enters in his diary: ‘The Duchess of
Gordon asks my opinion of Bishop d’Autun, who is, she is
told, a very profligate, fellow.’

But although feeling with regard to France was running
high, and although the majority of the Whigs had lost all
their enthusiasm for the Revolution, there were still some
who, in the words of a letter which Talleyrand wrote to
Lord Shelburne in the October of this year, remained
‘faithful to Liberty, despite the mask of blood and dirt with
which certain atrocious scoundrels have hidden her features.’

Lord Slaelburne himself, with that belief in popular
government and contempt of popular opinion which dis-
tinguished him, was the most prominent of those who
refused to allow their settled opinions to be affected by
terrible events. Steering always a middle course, he was
drawing closer to Fox and further from Pitt at this time,
and it was in his house that Talleyrand, a welcome guest,
was able to meet some of the 'leaders of the Opposition.

Towards the end of the year Talleyrand was obliged to
move from Woodstock Street into Kensington Square for
greater economy, and to sell the whole of his library which,
despite the fact that he had been proscribed as an emigrant,
he succeeded in having transferred from Paris to London.
The sale realised £‘]SO, which was all that remained to him
to live on. Many of his friends were living in equally
straitened circumstances. Madame de Flahaut, who had
followed him from Paris, and had found lodgings in Half
Moon Street, sought to augment her income by her pen,
and produced a novel of which Talleyrand corrected the
proofs.

Another companion in misfortune was Madame de
Genlis, mistress of the Duke of Orleans and governess of

EXILE

69

his children, who, censorious of weakness in others and
indulgent of it in herself, made more enemies than friends
on her way through life. When she came to write her
memoirs, Talleyrand, one of the best-hated men of his age,
is one of the few of whom she has nothing but good to
record. Poor as he was, he offered to assist her with a
considerable sum of money, and he was a regular guest in
the humble dwelling where she was educating the sister of
the future Louis-Philippe and the mysterious and beautiful
Pamela, who became in course of time the tragic bride of
Lord. Edward Fitzgerald. He put life and gaiety into their
little supper-parties of two or three, and always praised, with
that affectionate irony which even those who distrusted
him found endearing, the ‘estimable frugality’ of the fare
which was all that his hostess could afford. On one occasion,
however, owing presumably to an unexpected windfall,
she was able to offer a sumptuous feast to a large number of
friends. Talleyrand, arriving with the others, whispered
in her ear: ‘I promise not to look surprised.’

Old Horace Walpole, still writing letters in Berkeley
Square, informs Lady Ossory that ‘that scribbling trollop
Madame de Sillery,’ by whom he means Madame de
Genlis, ‘and the viper that has cast his skin, the Bishop of
Autun, are both here, but I believe little noticed, and the'
woman and the serpent I hope will find few disposed to
taste their rotten apples.’

All the eventful year of 1793, which witnessed the
execution of Louis xvi and the outbreak of the war
between France and England, the decline of Danton and
the rise of Robespierre, was passed quietly by Talleyrand in
London. It was probably during this year that he wrote the
treatise on the Duke of Orleans which forms part of his
published memoirs. He offers no defence for, and indeed
strongly condemns, the character and conduct of Philippe-

EXILE

70

Egalit^, but acquits him of any responsibility for the out-
break or the course of the Revolution. ‘If historians strive
to discover the men to whom they can give the honour or
attribute the blame of having caused, or directed, or modified
the French Revolution, they will be wasting their time. It
had no authors, nor leaders, nor guides. The seed was
sown by writers who, in a bold and enlightened age, wishing
to attack prejudice, overthrew the principles of religion and
of social life, and by incompetent Ministers, who increased
the embarrassment of the treasury and the discontent of the
people.’ Whether Talleyrand wrote these words in 1793
or at a later date they can be taken as giving his considered
opinion, the soundness of which few historians will be
inclined to dispute.

At the end of January 1794 Talleyrand was suddenly
informed, without any previous warning, that he must leave
England immediately. The Government were taking action
under the powers conferred upon them by the Aliens Act
which had been passed in the previous month. They were
not obliged to give any reason for their decision, and no
reason was ever given. Talleyrand wrote a dignified pro-
test to Pitt which that Minister had not the civility to
answer, despite the fact that he had been as a young man
received with hospitality by Talleyrand’s uncle, and that
he had himself two years earlier received Talleyrand as a
representative of the French Government. Letters which he
addressed to the King and to Lord Grenville remained
equally without reply.

According to the standards of the eighteenth century the
treatment ’accorded to Talleyrand was harsh, although in
the twentieth century, which has a more ruthless method of
waging war, he would have considered himself extremely
fortunate to escape internment. He was an alien enemy,
he had supported the Revolution up to the very moment

EXILE

71

of his arrival in England, he had written a justification of
the loth of August, and he had been on the best of terms
with Danton, who had provided him with the passport
which enabled him to leave France. If the French Govern-
ment had wished to maintain a secret agent in England
they could not have found amongst their twenty-five
millions one better qualified for the post, and, a few years
later, when he wished to return to France, he allowed it to
be stated in his defence that he was actually in the service
of the French Government at this time. He had explicitly
stated the opposite in writing to Lord Grenville on his
arrival, and he was probably speaking the truth; but while
we may regret that he should not have met with greater
courtesy from British Ministers, it must be admitted that
there was no individual in the country at the time to whom
the terms of the Aliens Act could with greater justice have
been applied.

He sailed from the Thames at the beginning of March,
and had an anxious moment in the Channel when, owing to
the weather, it seemed likely that the vessel would be obliged
to seek refuge in a French port. Eventually, however, she
put in at Falmouth, where he went ashore and sought
refreshment at an inn. The innkeeper informed him that
there was an American general staying there, who shortly
afterwards appeared, and with whom Talleyrand had some
conversation. Finally he asked whether he could give him
letters of introdmMt^ ..■feg America. ‘No,’ replied the
General, ‘I am perl^^^^^fcfal^merican who cannot give
you letters for his oW^^^^^^^^h&i^neral who dared not
say his name was tpust confess,’ said

Talleyrand, ‘that I felt for him. Political

puritans will blame me but I ^^shhtued of the senti-

ment because I have been a yiritaft^ of his- punishment.’
After all, in Talleyrand’s eyes, Athold’s crime, or blunder,

EXILE

7a

was only that while fighting on the winning side he had
believed in the victory of the other, and, at the wrong
moment, had transferred his allegiance. It was a melancholy
encounter— Arnold, broken, disgraced, ashamed; Talley-
rand an exile, first from his own country and now from
Europe, ruined in pocket, tarnished in reputation, with
nothing to hope for from the victorious Revolutionaries,
and even less from the defeated Bourbons. The unknown
and largely undiscovered continent of America offered little
scope to the particular talents that he possessed, little use
for the knowledge and experience that he had acquired.
He appeared to be beginning life all over again in far less
favourable circumstances —and he was forty years of age.

4

We may judge of the mood in which Talleyrand now
regarded the future from the fact that on arrival in the
Delaware river, after thirty-eight monotonous days at sea,
he had so little appetite for landing, so little curiosity to
visit a new continent, that he attempted, without going
ashore, to take passage on a vessel that was sailing im-
mediately for India. There was, however, no berth avail-
able so that he was compelled to land and to proceed to
Philadelphia, where he soon discovered a number of French
acquaintances.

He had brought with him a letter of introduction from
Lord Shelburne to Washington, which he lost no time in
presenting, but which did not secure for him the interview
that he desired. Washington was deeply engaged in the
difficult task of keeping free from those entangling alliances
which he always dreaded for his own country. In the circum-
stances he thought it wiser' not to receive a man who had
juit been expelled from England, and who was denpunced

EXILE

n

by the French representative in Philadelphia as the enemy
of France. We cannot blame him. His letter of refusal was
couched in terms of the greatest civility. What, after all,
did the reception of one French emigrant matter in com-
parison with the future of the United States ?

In default of meeting Washington he made friends with
an American who, it may be permitted to think, was then
the most remarkable man in the whole of that continent.
Alexander Hamilton was a man whom Talleyrand could
both love and respect. They had much in common. Where
they differed the advantage was wholly upon Hamilton’s
side. They were both by breeding and in outlook aristo-
cratic, and both without the prejudices that aristocracy too
often connotes. They were both passionately interested in
politics, and both of them looked at politics from a realistic
standpoint and despised sentimental twaddle whether it
poured from the lips of a Robespierre or of a Jefferson.
The terrorist sobbing over humanity or the slave-owner
spouting about freedom were equally repulsive to these two
practical statesmen who attempted to see things as they
were. Both loved pleasure, both rejoiced in that embroidery
of life which we call elegance; neither was impervious to
the charms of women. But while the Frenchman became a
byword _ for lack of principle in an unprincipled age the
American had principles for which he would have died.
While Talleyrand saw in politics a path to riches, Hamilton
would sooner have picked a pocket than made a penny out
of his political position. Talleyrand frankly — for in such
matters he was always frank — could not understand why
Hamilton, fallen from office, was obliged to go back to the
Bar in order to make a living. He could not even admire a
lack of self-interest, which seemed to him foolish. Yet the
two were friends. Years afterwards Aaron Burr, who had
killed Hamilton in a duel, left a card upon Talleyrand in

EXILE

74

Paris. The major-domo was inetructed to inform Monsieur
Burr when he called again that over Talleyrand’s mantel-
piece there hung the portrait of Alexander Hamilton.

At Philadelphia Talleyrand found a small French colony,
the centre of which was a bookshop kept by Moreau de
Saint Mery at number 84 First Street. Here almost nightly
took place animated reunions of French refugees, who dis-
cussed over their host’s Madeira the past, the present and the
future of their country. More than one of them had, like
Talleyrand, sat in the Constituent Assembly. Moreau de
Saint Mdry himself had been there, as had the Vicomte de
Noailles, who had won fame by proposing the voluntary
resignation of all privileges on the part of the nobility. The
Marquis de Blacons and the Duke de La Rochefoucauld-
Liancourt had also been members, and the latter, like
Talleyrand, had reached Philadelphia via England and had
made some impression upon Miss Burney on the way.

Another emigrant was the Count, de Mor6, who had
visited America on a previous occasion when he had come
to fight for the cause of Independence. But liberty was a
blessing that he desired for other countries rather than his
own, and he emigrated at the outset of the Revolution; con-
sequently he distrusted and disliked those of his own class
who had not done likewise. His memoirs, written long
afterwards when he was an old man, contain references to
his fellow-countrymen whom he found in Philadelphia at
this time. He has little good to say for any of them, and in
many cases his statements can be shown to have been untrue.
It is to him that we owe the story that Talleyrand outraged
the susceptibilities of the Philadelphians by his open
admiration for a woman of colour with whom he frequently
appeared in public. There is no corroboration of this state-
ment, and the writer himself renders it difficult of belief
by adding that Talleyrand’s ‘company was much sought

EXILE

75

after, for he was an amusing companion and had plenty of
wit of his own, though many witticisms of other persons
were often ascribed to him.’

A more sympathetic portrait is to be found in the memoirs
of Madame de la Tour du Pin who with her husband and
child was living in the country near Albany. She was a
beautiful woman of Irish origin, by birth a Dillon. She
had recently, after a series of thrilling and romantic adven-
tures, escaped from Bordeaux with the aid of Madame
Tallien, and was throwing herself with energy into the task
of working on a farm. One morning as she was engaged in
the courtyard of the farm with a hatchet in her hand, making
the necessary preparations for the day’s dinner, she heard
a deep voice behind her exclaim: ‘It would be impossible
to cut up a leg of mutton with greater majesty.' Turning
she saw Talleyrand who had come out from Albany with an
invitation from General Schuyler to return with him to
dinner and to spend the night.

Madame de la Tour du Pin was as good as she was
beautiful. ‘She has made a great impression on the ladies
of Boston,’ Talleyrand wrote to Madame de StaSl. ‘She
sleeps with her husband every night and they have only one
bedroom. Warn Mathieu (de Montmorency) and Narbonne
of this. Tell them it is essential in order to have a good
reputation in this country.’ It was difficult for such a
woman to have a high opinion of Talleyrand, but while she
disapproved she found it impossible to dislike. She wrote
of him upon this occasion: ‘Monsieur de Talleyrand was
kind, as he has always and invariably been to me, with that
particular charm in conversation which nobody ever pos-
sessed as he did. He knew me from my childhood and
therefore had a slightly paternal manner with me which was
singularly delightful. One couldn’t help regretting that
there were so many reasons for not thinking well pf him,

EXILE

76

and aftdr listening to him for an hour one was compelled to
banish the recollection of everything one had heard against
him. Worthless himself, he hated, strangely enough, what
was bad in others. Listening to him without knowing him,
one could believe that he was virtuous. Only his exquisite
good taste prevented him from saying in my presence things
that would have shocked me, and if, as sometimes hap-
pened, some remark of the kind did escape him, he would
quickly correct himself and exclaim: ‘Ah — it’s true — you
don’t like that sort of thing.’

He performed many kind and useful services for Madame
de la Tour du Pin, both at this time and later in the course
of her long, eventful, and tragic life.

When they returned to Albany on the evening of the day
of this visit. General Schuyler had important news for them.
Robespierre had fallen, the Terror was over, the dangerous
phase of the Revoludon was at an end. By the same post the
news arrived that among the very last batch of victims who
had fallen under the guillotine on the same morning that
Robespierre was being defeated in the Convention, was
Talleyrand’s young sister-in-law, the mother of three
children. Sincerely as he mourned her, his mind that
night must also have been full of speculation as to how his
own future would be affected' by these events, Although
he had found plenty to occupy him in the United States,
and had entered into various financial transactions which
had brought him profit, he was desperately anxious to return
to his country and to collect the broken fragments of his
career.

The first step was to secure the erasure of his name from
the list of emigrants whose liberties and lives were still in
danger if they returned to France. With this end in view
he turned for assistance to Madame de StaSl, who worked
for him with ardour and devotion, as she always worked for

EXILE

77

any friend who needed her help. Years afterwards, when
they were no longer friends; Napoleon asked Talleyrand
whether it was true that Madame de Stagl was given to
intrigue. ‘To such an extent,’ replied Talleyrand, ‘that if it
were not for her intrigues, I should not be here now.’ ‘She
seems, at any rate, to be a good friend,’ was Napoleon’s
comment. ‘She is such a good friend,’ said Talleyrand,
‘that she would throw all her acquaintances into the water
for the pleasure of fishing them out again.’

Talleyrand himself drew up a formal petition which he
forwarded to the Convention, while Madame de StaSl char-
acteristically persuaded the mistress of Marie - Joseph
Chgnier to sing pathetic ballads to him about the sorrows of
exile. Chdnier, the brother of the poet, was at the moment
one of the most powerful speakers in the Convention, The
ballads did their work, .and the orator did his.

‘Pride of soul and principle made him a republican’ —
it was thus that he described Talleyrand in his speech to the
Convention, ‘and it is in the bosom of a republic, in the
fatherland of Benjamin Franklin, that he has sought the con-
templation of that imposing spectacle— a free people.’ The
motion for his erasure from the list of emigrants was passed
with acclamation, and at the beginning of November 1795,
Talleyrand received the good news in New York.

Despite his anxiety to return to Europe, he delayed
his journey for six months. Nobody in the eighteenth
century' would undertake the crossing of the Atlantic in
winter if it could possibly be avoided. He thus spent over
two years in the United States of America. The impressions
he received are recorded in his memoirs and in a lengthy
letter that he wrote to Lord Shelburne at the time.

The cause of the Revolution was still extremely popular
in America. Cheers for France and Liberty, groans for
England and Tyranny, were the order of the day. There was

EXILE

78

a vociferous section of the people in favour of intervention
in the war on the side of the Republic. But so profound an
observer as Talleyrand was not deceived by what was
apparent on the surface. He assures Lord Shelburne that,
despite these manifestations, the country is at heart English,
and that it is England more than any other country that
stands to benefit from the rapidly increasing prosperity and
population of her former colonists. It is not a question of
sentiment but of necessity. Only England can provide those
industrial products which the new country demands, only
English finance can afford the long-term credits which are
at present essential for her development.

The only obstacle that he foresees to the rapid improve-
ment of relations between the two countries is the incredible
folly of the British Government, in doing everything that
could possibly offend the susceptibilities and alienate the
affections of the Americans. Their diplomatic repre-
sentatives are treated with contempt in London, and England
is represented in America by men who are known for the
fervour of their opposition to the cause of independence
or else by minor officials of no importance.

‘Would the superiority of England *be diminished,’ he
pleads, ‘if you were to send here as Minister some great
nobleman, a young man with pleasant manners.? If you
knew what the vanity of a new people is, when they are still
embarrassed as to their position in the world, if you knew
the Americans, you could have no doubt as to what the
general effect throughout the country would be of so simple
a manoeuvre. The Americans would be flattered and the
day that they are flattered they are won. Two years ago
Prince Edward (the Duke of Kent) was at Boston and there
was a ball. This year people still talk with gratitude of how
he did not refuse an invitation, and of his kindness and good
nature. The woman lyho danced with him from joy, embar-

EXILE

79

rassmentj or respect, fainted and had an attack of nerves.
If Lord Wycombe (Lord Shelburne’s son) has forgotten
how long he stayed in the various towns of America that
he visited, and the names of the people with whom he dined
or had tea, I shall be well able to remind him; those things
are not forgotten here. They are entered on the family
register.’

He ends the letter by saying; ‘My conclusion is that the
Americans will remain independent, that they will be more
useful to England than to any other Power, and that this
utility will increase in proportion as the English Govern-
ment gives up its present haughtiness of demeanour in all
its relations with America.’

Before Talleyrand left America he had an interview with
William Cobbett. Two more strangely contrasted individ-
uals never met, Cobbett was at this time earning his living
in Philadelphia by teaching English to French emigrants.
He had also plunged recently into political journalism which,
for him, meant always bitter polemics and violent personal
abuse. Although he had left England under a cloud, failing
to appear as the prosecutor of officers under whom he had
served as a private soldier and against whom he had brought
charges of peculation, now that England was at war the
profound patriotism of his nature prompted him to set his
pen at her service and to denounce the iniquities of all her
enemies. So for a short period he was loud in praise of King
and Constitution and pitiless in exposure of republicans,
revolutionaries, and atheists. There was nobody whom he
had attacked more violently than Talleyrand whom, he says
himself, he had called ‘an apostate, a hypocrite and every
other name of which he was deserving.’ He was the more
surprised therefore when he heard that Talleyrand wished
to meet him. The meeting was arranged, and Cobbett,
whose idea of calling on an enemy was to do it with a thick

8o

EXILE

stick, confesses that he was completely bewildered when
Talleyrand addressed him with the greatest civility and
.complimented him upon his wit and learning. When
Talleyrand proceeded to inquire whether it was at Oxford
or at Cambridge that he had been educated, Cobbett, who
had never seen the inside of school or college, could bear it
no longer. With that suspicion, which never leaves the
ill-educated even when they are brilliantly intelligent, that
the man of higher culture is making a fool of them, Cobbett
burst out with the typically vigorous and .bucolic assurance
that he ‘was no trout, and consequently not to be caught by
tickling.’

Cobbett suspected that Talleyrand had come to purchase
his support, for he was convinced that Talleyrand was an
agent in the pay of the French Government, just as many
people in Philadelphia were convinced, and with better
reason, that Cobbett was an agent in the pay of the Govern-
ment of Great Britain. He was incapable of understanding
what was probably the real reason of Talleyrand’s visit-
curiosity to meet a remarkable man — ^just as he was in-
capable of believing, in his blunt and honest way, that a
man could feel no resentment against one who had called
him an apostate and a hypocrite.

Cobbett was wrong in his belief that Talleyrand was
in the pay of the French Government. There is no shred of
evidence to support the theory. It was, however, the same
suspicion that had doubtless been responsible for his exile
from England. And it was not an unnatural suspicion.
Possibly his conduct encouraged it.

It is one thing to be a paid spy, it is another to be an
intelligent traveller anxious to acquire any information that
may be of value to your country and, incidentally, to your-
self. Hjs eyes were ever turned towards Paris, his mind
ever busy with plans for his return. That return would be

EXILE

vastly facilitated if he could bring with him or send on in
advance some proof of his zealous attachment to the Govern-
ment that was now in power. Mr. Kipling has devoted one
of his short stories to this period of Talleyrand’s life, and
while there is no reason to suppose that the episode that he
imagines ever took place, the story itself probably contains
the true answer to the question whether Talleyrand was
working for the French Government or not. Fiction is
often an aid to history, and the penetrating eye of genius
can discern much that remains elusive to the patient re-
searches of the historian.

Chapter Four

THE DIRECTORY

I

Sailing from the Delaware River on a Danish vessel in the
middle of June, Talleyrand reached Hamburg at the end
of July. He had not yet disembarked when a messenger
arrived bearing a letter from Madame de Flahaut. She
was in Hamburg, and was receiving the attentions of a
wealthy Portuguese, Monsieur de Souza, whom it was her
firm intention to marry. The arrival of Talleyrand, whom
every one knew to have been her lover and the father of her
son, might, she feared, seriously interfere with her matri-
monial arrangements. She therefore suggested that instead
of landing he should return immediately by the same ship
to America. Talleyrand was always ready to help a friend,
but this particular request went a little beyond what he
considered the obligations of friendship. He took no notice
of it, tactfully avoided the courting couple, and the projected
marriage subsequently took place with the happiest results.

Another old friend whom he had last seen in London
and found again in Hamburg was Madame de Genlis. The
beautiful Pamela was still with her, now the bride of
Lord Edward Fitzgerald, who was filling the house with
Irish rebels plotting the rebellion of 1798.

There were other French refugees in Hamburg, all with
separate plots and separate parties. One desire only they
had in common, and that was to return to France, Conditions
there remained so unsettled, the situation so volcanic, that

8j

THE DIRECTORY

83

even for Talleyrand, whose name had been removed from
the list of emigrants, Paris was not without ddnger. When
he arrived there he was to discover that having been de-
nounced in England and America as a French spy, in Paris
he was suspected of being in the pay of a foreign Govern-
ment. It is therefore not surprising -that he waited a month
at Hamburg, and another fortnight at Amsterdam, before
finally putting his head into the lion’s mouth and returning
to his native city,

Many and far-reaching were, we are taught to believe,
the results of the French Revolution; the immediate and
actual result, however, so far as France was concerned, was
the creation of a Government the most inefficient, corrupt,
and contemptible with which any great country has ever
been cursed. The Directory, which ruled France for four
years, from November 1795 to November 1799, had only
one principle— to protect in their existing situation the large
number of people who had made substantial profits out of
the Revolution. The Directory was therefore afraid of two
things— on the one hand the return of the Bourbons, on the
other a fresh revolution which would entail a redistribution
of national property and the submersion of those particular
revolutionaries whom chance, and no other conceivable
agency, had recently thrown to the top of the melting-pot.

There were five members of the Directory, and, by the
Constitution, one of them was replaced each year. Of the
thirteen individuals, who at different times were Directors,
ten were little better than nonentities. Carnot, who was a
member during the first two years, had character and ability,
although his hands were stained with all the blood that had
been shed under the Terror. Siey^s, who refused office in
the first days of the Directory and accepted it in the last,
made some impression on his contemporaries as a political
philosopher, but he was both conceited and a coward, an

84

THE DIRECTORY

unfortunate combination of qualities which rendered It
equally difficult for him either to accept the policy of
others or to impose his own.

The soul of the Directory was Barras, who was the only
member to remain in office from the beginning to the end.
BarraSj unliJee his colleagiaesj had some pretensions to being
a gentleman. He was also the only one of them who suc-
ceeded in not looking quite ridiculous in the elaborate fancy
dress that David, the painter, had designed, and which the
Constitution decreed that the Directors should wear upon
ceremonial occasions. He was a Gascon and had served in
the army. He possessed bravado rather than courage,
cunning rather than cleverness, joviality rather than human-
ity, and swagger rather than elegance. He was the only
Director who did not appear rather ashamed of himself,
He was in fact shameless, and, having collected money with
both hands for four years, he finally departed in peace with
one last colossal bribe in his pocket.

It was the duty of the Directory to appoint Ministers and
it was no easy business to find in Paris men who were fit
for ministerial posts. From the supply of talent usually
available there had to be deducted, first the emigrants,
secondly the armies — there were four in the field at this
time— and thirdly the two Chambers, whose members were
•forbidden by the Constitution to hold office. What the
Directory most needed was experience and ability, and these
were the very qualities that Talleyrand had to offer. It is
therefore less surprising than it at first appears that, arriving
in Paris in September with no resources and no friends in
power, an ex-noble_and an ex-bishop, he should have found
himself in the following July promoted at a leap to the
position of Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Of the steps that led up to this appointment we have two
accounts. One is contained in the memoirs of Barras and

THE DIRECTORY

8S

the other in the memoirs of Talleyrand, Neither rings true.
According to Barras it was Madame de Sta£l who first
introduced Talleyrand to him and then pestered him with
repeated visits urging him to giye Talleyrand a post.
Finally, according to this version, she arrived one day in a
state of violent emotion with the announcement that unless
Talleyrand was promoted at once, he was determined to
commit suicide. Barras insinuates that Madame de StaSi
conveyed to him at this interview that there was no sacrifice
that she was not prepared to make on behalf of her friend.
He adds that he resisted the advance and rejected the appeal,
but the weak feature of his story is that while he insists with
pride upon his firmness in refusal he gives no explanation
as to why he finally capitulated, and, at some difficulty to
himself, forced Talleyrand upon his reluctant colleagues.

Talleyrand himself says that, much against his will, he
was persuaded by Madame de Stael to dine with Barras at a
villa on the banks of the Seine. Shortly' after his arrival,
before dinner had been served and before Barras had
appeared, news was brought that a young man who served
Barras as secretary, and to whom he was particularly devoted,
had been drowned while bathing in the river. Barras rt^as
overcome with grief and was unable to come down to
dinner. Talleyrand dined alone, and afterwards went up
to his host’s room where he did his best to console him. So
tactful and sympathetic was Talleyrand’s behaviour that
Barras was completely conquered. The two drove back to
Paris together the best of friends, and the appointment to
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs was the result.

Barras further relates an unconvincing story of how
Talleyrand received the news. He was at the opera with his
friend Boniface de Castellane. It was Benjamin Constant,
noTjv the lover of Madame de Stafil, who was sent to inform
him. Talleyrand, overcome with delight, insisted on going

86

THE DIRECTORY

off at once to thank Barras. Seated between Castellane
and Constant in the carriage, pressing both their knees in
his excitement, he kept muttering to himself how much
money he hoped to make out of his new position. 'Une
fortune immense^ une immense fortune,' are the words he is
supposed to have repeated. On arrival he almost over-
whelmed Barras, who was about to retire for the night, with
expressions of gratitude, and on leaving could hardly be
restrained from embracing the servants. Of this story it is
sufficient to say that Talleyrand was famous throughout his
life for complete self-control and composure in all. circum-
stances. It was coarsely, if concisely, put by one of his
contemporaries, who said that he could be kicked a dozen
times from behind wnthout his face betraying the fact to
those who were in front of him. Barras was a notorious liar
and when he wrote his memoirs he had every reason for
hating Talleyrand. That part of the story which he did
not actually witness was reported to him by Madame de
StaSl who had it from Benjamin Constant. Both of them
were by profession writers of romance.

Any reader is at liberty to believe as much or as little of
contemporary accounts as he desires, and indeed half the
fascination of studying the memoirs of the past is the
endeavoiJf, by making allowance for the prejudices and
predilections of the writer, to sift truth from falsehood. All
that we can say for certain about this particular intrigue,
for an intrigue it was, is that Talleyrand succeeded in
obtaining office through the assistance of Barras, and that
the agent who brought the two men together was Madame
de Stafil.

a

The Paris in which Talleyrand found himself Minister
for Foreign Affairs in 1797 was a very different town from

THE DIRECTORY

87

that which he had known in the happy days before the
Revolution. Symptomatic of the wretched condition into
which France had fallen were the rivers of mud which flowed
through the principal streets of the capital, the dilapidated
houses, the broken monuments, the plundered and forsaken
churches. But although little effort had yet been made to
set upon foot the work of reconstruction, the one inde-
structible quality of the Parisian had already reasserted
itself, and the town, though neither so clean nor so comely
as it had been, was as gay as ever. Indeed, the reaction
from the gloom and misery produced by the Revolution was
an outburst of enjoyment which took the form of almost
frenzied revelry and unbridled licence.

Dancing appeared to be the main interest of the popula-
tion, and the deserted palaces of the great, the empty
monasteries and convents, even some of the former churches
were converted into resorts where this prevailing passion
could find satisfaction. Hither, clad in transparent muslin,
with bare legs, sandals, and rings upon their toes, their hair
cut short and curled in what they believed to be the ancient
Roman fashion, came the fair pleasure-seekers of the day to
tread a measure with their cavaliers. Among the latter it
was the singular mode to wear clothes which were carefully
designed not to fit, to pull their hats down to their eyebrows,
and to swathe their necks in vast cravats which concealed
the chin and fringed the lower lip.

The outward forms of the Revolution were still observed,
the new calendar and the new jargon. Toy dogs were trained
to growl at the name of aristocrat, every tenth day was
ddcadi and the excuse for a gala, at which Monsieur and
Madame addressed one another with equal politeness as
Citizen and Citizeness.

But society must have its leaders. The great ladies of
the past had fled or perished. Their places had to be filled.

88

THE DIRECTORY

Not for soldiers and politicians only had the Revolution
produced ‘the career open to talent.’ No longer need the
stern decrees of fashion be dictated by ladies of noble birth
and high degree.

The beautiful Thdrese Cabarrus, daughter of a once
needy adventurer, wife of Tallien, mistress of Barras and of
many others, was one whom all aspirants to elegance sought
to imitate, and eager eyes noted every detail of her scanty
clothing as she sat in her box at the opera or passed in
her claret - coloured chariot. The lovely young wife of
Rdcamier, the banker, was another. Her bedroom, furnished
with mahogany, with bronze swans carrying wreaths of flowers
above the bed, with classical lamps and marble statuary, was
the last word in interior decoration. Josephine, widow of
Beauharnais and bride of the young General now doing so
well upon the Italian front, had recently yielded to the prayers
of her ardent husband and joined him at Montebello.
Before she left, her house was, as Barras described it, the
best in Paris, because she belonged to the old society as well
as to the new, and because, although she had been a revolu-
tionary and a Jacobin, her first husband had been guillotined
as an aristocrat. She was thus able to give to the penniless
Corsican the social background which he lacked.

In this new world, ruled by charlatans and dominated
by demireps, Talleyrand may have found much to shock his
sense of decorum, but little to outrage his moral standards.
It was an age of corruption. In France, as in England, men
who went into politics expected, as a general rule, to be
paid for their pains. That they received profitable posts or
pecuniary rewards from their leaders did not necessarily
mean that they sold their consciences, but merely that they
demanded solid remuneration for solid services. Like many
questionable practices the system worked well enough until
it was carried to its logical conclusion, when it became a

THE DIRECTORY ’ 89

scandal. Talleyrand in France, like Flenry Fox in England,
acted on the same principles as his contemporaries, but
because he took millions where they took thousands, he
became an object of general obloquy.

It is impossible to defend a statesman who turns his
public position to his private profit, and it can only be
in slight mitigation of censure that we remember the lower
standards of another age. A William Pitt, or even a New-
castle, is capable of rising above such standards and
setting an example which raises the tone of succeeding
generations.

During these years Talleyrand laid the foundations of a
tremendous fortune. He received vast sums from many
sources, principally from the* Governments of other countries.
When three Commissioners arrived from the United States
in order to negotiate a settlement of certain questions relative
to the seizure of ships during the war, it was made plain to
them that it would be useless to open proceedings until
they had made' a very substantial present to the Minister
for Foreign Affairs. The honest Americans were indignant,
and, so far from parting with a penny, they immediately
returned to their own country, where they published the
facts to the world, and so put Talleyrand in an extremely
inconvenient position.

Among the principal agents who served him in this
affair, and in many similar ones, was the celebrated Casimir
de Montrond who became at this time the firmest of his
friends and remained so, with one brief interval of quarrel-
ling, until his death. ‘Le beau Montrond,’ as he was called,
was a' dandy, a gambler, a swordsman, and a wit whose
successes, both with the ladies and at the card table, had
already acquired for him a large measure of notoriety,
Talleyrand said that he liked him because he was not over-
burdened ■with scruples, to which Montrond replied that

go

THE -DIRECTORY

he liked Talleyrand because he had no scruples at all.
Despite their cynicism the affection that united them was
genuine, and it survived the storms of many tempestuous
years.

3

The Minister whom Talleyrand succeeded in the depart-
ment of Foreign Affairs in July 1797 was Charles Delacroix,
who had long been suffering from a distressing malady
which rendered it impossible for him to become a father.
In the following September, however, he underwent a
dangerous but successful operation, and some two months
later he was restored to normal health. In April Madame
Delacroix presented him with a.son.

The paternity of this child, who was to become the
celebrated painter, was generally ascribed to Talleyrand,
and the theory was supported by a strong facial resemblance
and by the fact that in thd early days of his career the young
artist was always in receipt of very valuable patronage ahd
support from some mysterious and powerful source.

The most curious feature of the whole affair is to be
found in a paragraph published in the Moniteur shortly
before the birth of the child, giving, ostensibly in the
interests of surgical science, a full account of the operation
performed on Delacroix, and stating in so many words the
disability from which he had previously suffered. Talley-
r^d in his ministerial position exercised considerable
control over the Moniteur^ which was an official publication
and did not usually contain items of this nature. If, as
seems not .unlikely, Talleyrand was responsible for the
announcement, we can only wonder what can have induced
him to commit an act of such apparently wanton malice.
To have succeeded the unfortunate Delacroix simultaneously
in his ministerial appointment and in the favours of his wife

THE DIRECTORY

91

wouldhave seemed sufRcient without proclaiming to the world
in the solemn columns of the Monileur that the late Minister
for Foreign affairs could not be the true father of his accepted
son._

The effect produced by the charms of Madame Delacroix,
a mature beauty of thirty-nine, was soon effaced by a
stronger influence which at this time entered into Talley-
rand’s life. Exactly how he first met the lady who was
eventually to become his wife is uncertain. There is a
story that she applied to him for assistance in connection
with her passport and as the result of difficulties which
were being made for her by the police. It is certain that
when she was arrested on a charge of espionage, Talleyrand
appealed to Barras for her release with the result that Barras
had one of many stormy interviews with his fellow Directors
and had to listen, to a lengthy denunciation of Talleyrand’s
vices from Rewbell, the Director who most hated him and who
was responsible for the Department of which he was the head,

Catherine-Noel Worl^e had been born some thirty-five
years earlier of French parents in the Danish Indian
colony of Tranquebar, Her parents were government
officials in a small way, and at the age of fifteen she married
an English employee of the East India Company named
Grand. This gentleman was appointed to a post in Calcutta
where the remarkable beauty of his young wife soon attracted
attention.

Most distinguished of those who were affected by her
charms was Sir Philip Francis, the reputed author of the
Junius letters, and now a member of the Supreme Council
• of Bengal. It is strange that he should have found time to
spare from the fierce struggle with Warren Hastings in
which he was engaged, for the seduction of the young wife
of Mr. Grand. He had to aid him in the task, besides such
assistance as wit and intellect of the first order can confer,

THE DIRECTORY

ga

a salary of 10,000 a year and a position, second only to
that of the Governor-General. It is little wonder then that
he succeeded, but more surprising that .one who had pre-
viously shown such discretion in maintaining anonymity
should have marked the day of his success in his diary with
the unambiguous motto : Omnia vincit amor.

Some ten days later, however, there occurs an entry in
the same diary that tells a less fortunate tale. ‘This night,
the devil to pay in the house of G. F. Grand, Esq.’ On
that night the servants of Mr. Grand had descried a bamboo
ladder hanging from the window of their lady’s chamber,
and on breaking into it, hoping to secure a robber, they had
secured instead, and 'bound with ropes, a member of the
Supreme Council of Bengal.

Mr, Grand brought an action, obtained large damages,
pocketed his money, and returned his wife to her parents.
Sir Philip, however, persuaded her to come back to him,
and for a year lodged her under the same roof with Lady
Francis, whom he persuaded that their relations were purely
platonic— a feat in comparison with which the authorship
of the letters of Junius sinks into insignificance.

Such a situation could not continue, and soon Madame
Grand departed for Paris, where she spent the years before
the Revolution in such variable and uncertain splendour as
great beauty unaccompanied by brains is usually able to
command. Tall, with the supple figure of a Creole, blue
eyes, a slightly retroussd nose, which strangely enough
resembled that of Talleyrand, and a wealth of very fair
hair, so thick and long that it could, and upon a certain
occasion did, serve as sufficient clothing for her whole body,
these were the gifts that secured for Catherine Grand an
assured position in the- profession into which she- had
drifted. ^

Of her intelligence there were two opinions, of her

THE DIRECTORY

93

beauty there was only one. With regard to the former the
general view was that she was more than ordinarily stupid
and it became the fashion to attribute to Madame Grand,
and subsequently to Madame de Talleyrand, every absurd
remark that was made in Paris. But if she was neither witty,
refined, nor highly educated— and it is difficult for a com-
monplace wife to shine in the presence of a husband of
genius — she must at least have possessed a fund of common
sense and an appreciation of her own interests which
enabled her to bring a dangerous career to a comfortable
conclusion.

Before the Revolution she had been the mistress at one
time of de Lessart, who has already been mentioned as
Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1791, and who became a
victim of the September massacres. It is improbable that
Talleyrand should not have met or heard of her at this time.
In her anxiety to acquire some measure of respectability, so
dear to the heart of a courtesan, she used to call on her
lover’s mother, who apparently was willing to receive her.
A certain young Baron de Frdnilly, who lived opposite to
Madame de Lessart, noticed the beautiful visitor, who at first
regarding him as a boy would pay no attention to him.
But as he grew older he made his presence felt, and dis-
covering that she had a charming carriage but no horses,
whereas he had some fine white horses but lacked a carriage,
he was able to persuade her to combine their advantages in
order to drive down to a cottage which he owned in the
suburbs on the side of a lake. She was, in those days, he
writes, good natured, beautiful, and silly, and after she had
become Princess de Talleyrand she was always the same.
'From 1797 she lived openly in Talleyrand’s house and
performed in public the duties of the wife of the Minister
for Foreign Affairs.

94

THE DIRECTORY

4

But matters more important than the paternity of Delacroix
or the protection of Madame Grand claimed the attention
of the new Minister. As a man of acknowledged ability
he had obtained a high position in a weak Government
that was already doomed. He had to think of the future —
immediate and distant. Reviewing in his own mind the
lamentable condition in which France found herself as the
result of the Revolution, he saw one, and only one, satis-
factory feature— the success of the French army in the north
of Italy. Within less than a week of taking office he wrote a
letter to the young General commanding that army, to
Napoleon Bonaparte, whom he had never seen, assuring
him in terms of the most adroit and tactful flattery of his
admiration and respect. Napoleon replied and the corres-
pondence became regular. Napoleon was quick to realise
that there was one man in Paris whose support was precious
and whose advice was invaluable, and Talleyrand learnt
that this soldier’s genius was not purely military and that
he would prove a force to be reckoned with in the changes
that were at hand.

Talleyrand was not the only emigrant who had returned
recently to France. Paris was full of former members of the
nobility, some of whom had received permission to return,
others who had never left but had gone into hiding or shrunk
into obscurity from which they now emerged, and many
who relied for their safety upon false names and forged
papers. Madame de la Tour du Pin, whom we last saw
working on a farm at Albany, had returned with her hus-
band, and records in her memoirs the extreme impudence
■with which the Royalists were boasting in public of their
future plans. ‘People thought me ridiculous and pedantic
when I told them, as I knew to be the case, that Monsieur

THE DIRECTORY

*95

de Talleyrand was well aware of all that was being plotted,
and was laughing at it in his sleeve.’

The hopes of the Royalists had been raised by the result
of the recent election of one third of the Assembly which
had gone entirely in their favour, by the selection, as its
President, of Pichegru, the former conqueror of Holland,
who was already in the pay of the Bourbons, and by the
appointment to the annually vacated place on the Directory
of Barth^lepiy, who was a diplomatist of the old rc^gime and
a reactionary at heart. Carnot also, who was still the most
respectable member of the Government, was believed to be
weary of the existing system and prepared to welcome its
overthrow; and if there had then been upon the spot a
resolute leader with the courage to strike a blow for the
Royalist cause, it is possible that it might have triumphed.
But two men of courage and intelligence decided otherwise,
and although they preferred to remain in the background
when the blow was struck, it was mainly due to Talleyrand
and to Napoleon that the plans of the Royalists were
thwarted and the Restoration postponed for seventeen years.

In opposition to Carnot and Barth61emy within the
Directory was the triumvirate of Barras, Rewbell, and La
Revellifere. Rewbell was a lawyer, a good speaker, and a
bully. An austere moralist himself, he resented the lack of
austerity in Talleyrand, whom he lost no opportunity of
abusing, both behind his back and to his face.

La Revelli^re was a revolutionary of the feebler, doc-
trinaire, idealistic type. He bitterly hated the Christian
religion and Carnot. In the place of the former he had
attempted to introduce a new pseudo-philosophical fad
■manufactured in England called ‘Theophilanthropy.’ On
one occasion he read a long paper explaining this novel
system of worship to his colleagues. When he had con-
cluded it and received the congratulations of the other

THE DIRECTORY

96*

Ministers, Talleyrand remarked; ‘For my part I have only
one observation to make. Jesus Christ, in order to found
His religion, was crucified and rose again — you should have
tried to do as much.’

Of Barras, Rewbell, and La Revelliere it has been said
with truth that the three of them did not amount to a man.
When therefore they found themselves faced with the
necessity of taking firm action in a dangerous world, in a
Paris where the sound of the last tumbrils had hardly ceased
to echo in the streets, and where the threat of a new and a
White Terror was gathering in the air, it is not surprising
that this tremulous triumvirate looked anxiously round for
a real man to do the work. After overtures had been made
to Hoche, a sincere republican and one who had no taste
for the intrigues of politics, it was finally decided, by
Napoleon and Talleyrand rather than by the Directors, that
Augereau was the right man for the job. He was a soldier
of fortune who had served with unvarying coGrage in many
countries. He had the appearance, manners, and vocabulary
of a sergeant-major, the principles of a Jacobin, and a string
of oaths without which he never mentioned the name of a
hated aristocrat. He was to become in course of time the
Duke of Castiglione.

Augereau was admirably suited to the work in hand. He
had the professional soldier’s contempt for politicians, and
nothing could give him greater pleasure than to lay violent
hands on a bevy of deputies. At three o’clock in the ihorn-
ing of 4th September— 18 Fructidor— the discharge of a
cannon warned the sleeping Parisians that the coup d’dtat,
which both sides had been anxiously awaiting, was about to
take place.

Everything passed off admirably. Carnot, the ‘organiser
of victory,’ bolted through the back door and made good his
escape to Switzerland. Barthdlemy, too proud to fly, was

THE DIRECTORY 97

arrested and, together with Pichegru and some fifty others,
was sent across France in an iron cage exposed to the
insults of the populace and then embarked for Cayenne, a
sentence which was considered to entail such certain death
that it was described at the time as the ‘dry guillotine.’
However Barthdlemy and Pichegru both succeeded sub-
sequently in escaping. All the elections which had resulted
in Royalist victories were declared void, a large number of
deputies and journalists were arrested and a great many
newspapers were suppressed. Augereau reported to Napoleon
— ‘General, my mission is accomplished. Paris is calm and
astonished by the crisis which threatened to be terrible and
which passed off like a fSte.’

All that day Talleyrand remained at home playing whist,
piquet, and hazard. Every quarter of an hour a messenger
arrived with the latest intelligence. As the news came in he
smiled but made no comment, continuing his game without
interruption. He always arranged to spend the day of a
coup d’etat as comfortably as possible.

5

The result of the action taken on the 1 8 Fructidor was to
strengthen the party in power and to postpone the fall of
the Directory for two years. It is possible that Talleyrand
expected t6 play a larger part in the new administration,
although there seems to have been small ground for such
expectation, seeing that he had only been in office for two
months, and that it was barely* a year since he had dared to
return to Paris. If he nursed such hopes they were disr-
appointed. The two vacant places in the Directory were
filled by Merlin de Douai, a mediocre lawyer, and Francois
de Neufchateau, a mediocre poet. Talleyrand continued,
while performing his ministerial functions, to prepare the

THE DIRECTORY

98

way for the downfall of the Government he was serving and
to secure his own position in that which he intended should
succeed it.

In October Napoleon concluded with Austria the Treaty
of Campo Formloj thus bringing his Italian campaign to a
triumphant conclusion. One article of that treaty, however,
might have been considered by political moralists to have
robbed the triumph of all its glory. Venice, alone among
the states of Northern Italy, had not been conquered by
Napoleon, but had rather been cajoled by the revolutionary
jargon of the time, and the usual claptrap about freedom,
into destroying her ancient Constitution and setting up a
supposedly democratic Government which was prepared to
accept the dictation of the French. Now by the recently
concluded treaty, in order that Napoleon might obtain
certain territorial advantages in other parts of Europe, the
old, invincible Republic, which had rejoiced in the pride of
her independence for over a thousand years, was handed
over, bound and fettered, to the House of Habsburg. And
so the chief result of the most successful campaign that the
soldiers of the Revolution had conducted was the destruc-
tion of a republic for the profit of an emperor.

Talleyrand had very strongly urged Napoleon not to
interfere with the independence of Venice. While he had
his own conscience sufficiently under control, he was wise
. enough to realise that it is never good policy to dutrage the
consciences of others. Those who believed that the Revolu-
tion had introduced a new era, and who had been wont to
denounce such manifestations of the old diplomacy as had
led to the partitioning of Poland, were naturally distressed
to find that the new diplomacy differed from the old only
in the increased amount of hypocritical verbiage with which
it sought to conceal its crimes. Talleyrand not only realised
this but also deprecated the excessive additions of territory

THE DIRECTORY

99

Upon which Napoleon’s ambition was already set. The one
was thinking of the restoration of order and the maintenance
of peace, while the restless brain of the other was scheming
for the domination of the Mediterranean and dreaming
of the conquest of the East,

But Talleyrand could accept a fait accompli, and the
effusive congratulations that he despatched to Napoleon
upon the signature of the treaty contained not the slightest
allusion to the views which he had previously expressed with
regard to the fate of Venice, nor any regret that they had
been disregaided. Napoleon was now upon his way home,
and Talleyrand was determined that no shadow of disagree-
ment should mar their first meeting.

On the evening of 5 th December Napoleon arrived in
Paris. Within a few hours of his arrival he sent to inquire
when it would be convenient for Talleyrand to receive him,
and the interview was arranged for eleven o’clock on the
following morning. As a small instalment of the debt of
gratitude which he owed her, Talleyrand informed Madame
de Stael of the expected visit, and she, who had already
pictured herself as the Egeria of the young genius upon
whom the eyes of France were fastened, was waiting in the
anteroom on the following mdrning. Unfortunately for her,
Bougainville, the explorer, was present also, and Napoleon
showed more interest in the man of action than in the
woman of letters. It was the first of many rebuffs which
she was to experience from one whom she had been so
ready to admire and serve.

Of this first meeting and conversation between the
two men Talleyrand has left us only the briefest record,
written many years later when the whole dazzling drama of
Napoleon’s career was closed. It is plain that the impression
which each produced upon the other was favourable, ‘At
first sight,’ writes Talleyrand, ‘his face appeared to me

100

THE DIRECTORY

charming. A score of victories go so well with youth, with
fine eyes, with paleness, and with an appearance of exhaus-
tion.’ Among the first things that Napoleon said was; 'You
are the nephew of the Archbishop of Rheims who is with
Louis xvin’ (not the Count de Lille, as it was customary
to call him in Paris). — ‘I also have an uncle, who is an arch-
deacon in Corsica. He brought me up. In Corsicaj you
know, an archdeacon is the same as a bishop in France.’
Very human are these ingenuous efforts of the young con-
queror to show that he was also a gentleman. In a few years
he will be talking of ‘We nobles,’ and yet a few years more
and he will be referring to Louis-xvi as ‘my poor uncle.’

What more serious subjects they discussed we do not
know. Napoleon said that it had been a pleasure for him in
Italy to have a correspondent such as Talleyrand who was so
different- from the Directors. We may safely conclude that
this led the General and the Minister into a frank discussion
of the Government they were serving. They found them-
selves agreeing to despise their masters and speculating
upon how long the regime was likely to endure. Talleyrand
doubtless explained how the recent coup d’dtat, at wjiich
they had boA connived, had strengthened the Administra-
tion and prolonged its existence, and possibly they discussed,
even at this first interview, the future that lay before them
and the parts they were to play in it.

The time was not yet ripe 'for a military dictator. Every
general who returned to Paris was regarded with suspicion
as a potential Cromwell, and the two new allies now deliber-
ately planned their conduct with a view to removing such
suspicion from people’s minds. A few days later Talleyrand
was entrusted with the task of introducing Napoleon to the
Directorate at an official reception which had been planned
with elaborate care. The ceremony took place amid scenes
of wild enthusiasm, but it was noticed and favourably

THE DIRECTORY

lOI

commented on that the Minister for Foreign Affairs
referred to the General throughout his address as ‘Citizen
Bonaparte.’

Later, when Talleyrand gave at his Ministry a magnificent
fete which surpassed, in elegance as well as in splendour,
any of the vulgar entertainments provided by the Directors,
it was expressly stated that the affair was in honour of
Madame" Bonaparte, and Napoleon himself appeared at it,
as was his custom at this time, in civilian attire. The impres-
sion that he was atfempting to convey and, to a large extent
succeeded in conveying, was that away from the battlefields
he was a quiet individual of a retiring character, only
desirous of being left in peace to pursue the study of science
and muse over the sublime poetry of Ossian. He showed
interest only in his candidature for the Institute, and when
his election was secured he let it be understood that the
highest ambition of his life was accomplished.

6

There now took place in the career of Napoleon an
event which came near to wrecking it, and which, the more
we consider it, becomes the harder to understand. The
youthful and ambitious adventurer, whose military prestige
already stood far higher than that of all his rivals, at a moment
when the Government was failing and the Constitution
threatened, when a thousand conspiracies were afoot and
none could prophesy the events of the next few weeks,
deliberately turned his back on Paris and France to plunge
into the most hazardous enterprise that he ever attempted,
across the sea which the English fleet commanded and
away into the deserts of Africa,

How far was Talleyrand responsible for this decision?
During the early days of his return, before he had succeeded

lot

THE DIRECTORY

in obtaining employment under the Directory, he had
delivered two carefully prepared lectures at the Institute of
France.

The first of these was concerned with Anglo-American
commercial relations, and the second, a natural sequel,
dealt with the advantages that France might gain from the
creation of new colonies. In the course of the second
lecture ne mentioned, with emphatic approval, the plan that
Choiseul had conceived years earlier for the conquest and
colonisation of Egypt.

The lecture was delivered at tlie beginning of July 1797.
In August Napoleon, writing from Italy and -referring to
the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire, impressed
upon the Directory the importance to France of acquiring
Egypt. Henceforward he and Talleyrand frequently men-
tioned the project in their correspondence. In January of
the following year Talleyrand laid before the Directory a
memorandum on the subject in which the despatch of ah
expedition was recommended, and in February he followed
it up by a voluminous report which urgently and eloquently
insisted upon the desirability of the enterprise. In April
Napoleon was appointed Commander of the Army of the
East, in May he left Paris, in June he conquered Malta,
in July he landed at Alexandria.

Although he subsequently denied having had anything
to do with it, the evidence is overwhelming that Talleyrand
strongly favoured and pressed forward 'the expedition to
Egypf from the first. And it is further proved that he had
an understanding with Napoleon according to which he was
to proceed at once to Constantinople as the Ambassador
of Prance, and there await the arriv^ of the conqueror, who
should have marched in triumph through Egypt, Palestine,
Syria, and Asia Minor. The work of conquest completed,
the new Emperor of the East would need a practised states-

THE DIRECTORY 103

man at his elbow, and Talleyrand was the man he had
selected for the post.

However wild and fantastic the dreams of’Napolebn at
this time may have been, they were hardly wilder or more
fantastic than what he subsequently accomplished. To what
extent the clear-sighted and cool-headed older man may have
shared these dreams it is impossible to say. He had seen
many unlikely things happen already, and was to see
stranger ones before he died. Napoleon had made a deep
impression upon him and had taken him more closely into
his confidence than any other man. It is possible that he
may for a moment have been infected by the other’s enthusi-
asm. It is possible again that he may have intended to get
rid of so explosive an element in French politics in order to
free his hands for dealing with more malleable stuIF. More
probably he considered that the time was not yet come for
the blow that he was preparing to strike, and that the interval
might be well employed in adding fresh laurels to those
that already graced the brow of the man he had selected as
best fitted for the task. If while attempting to gather those
laurels he should merely lose the ones he. had previously
collected, if the proud brow itself should strike the dust,
there remained other men in France and other generals at
the front to fill the gap, and other cards in the hand of the
Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Talleyrand never went to Constantinople. It was the
first evidence received by Napoleon that his new friend was
not always to be relied upon. Perhaps he had never meant
to go; perhaps, on the other hand, an event which took place
upon the ist of August altered his intention. On that day
the whole of the French fleet which had transported the
army of Bonaparte to Egypt was destroyed by Nelson in
Aboukir Bay. The conquest of the East was hampered by
the impossibility of receiving reinforcements, and the swift

104

THE DIRECTORY

return to Paris of the popular hero was complicated by the
fact that he was cut off from his base. Should his wildest
dreams come true and all obstacles on the road to Con-
stantinople fall before him like the walls of Jericho, Talley-
rand would be kept informed, and would yet arrive in time
at the appointed place.

But meanwhile the heart of his world was beating fast
in Paris, events were rapidly culminating towards a crisis,
the air was so thick with intrigues that it would be as
impossible for an historian to dissect them as it would be
for a scientist to recover and analyse the misty vapours that
rose that season from the Seine. The whole rotten edifice
of the Directory needed only one match to send it flaring
to the sky. That match might be set to it at any hour of
the day or night. Talleyrand remained in- Paris,

7

As is usually the case when democratic institutions are
failing, the general demand among all classes and in all
parties was for one strong man who would sweep away the
politicians, who would not pander to the ephemeral powers
that were, but would give good government to the majority,-,
who wanted it, and impose firm government upon the few,
who did not. Talleyrand, ever sensitive to popular opinion,
and gifted with a power of perception that could penetrate
the future further than most, was aware of this widespread
desire, and was determined to satisfy it.

Conscious of his own limitations, and never anxious to
play a leading part or to court the limelight, he did not even
aspire to be a Warwick or a Monk, but preferred to be one
step further removed from the throne and to push another
forward into the dangerous r6le of the king-maker. Barras
was too discredited, the other Directors were too incom-

THE DIRECTORY

105

petent, and it was Sicyes whom Talleyrand finally selected
as his instrument for the destruction of the Directory.

The easiest way to destroy a Government is from within.
Talleyrand, having decided upon the destruction of the
Directory, and having chosen Siey^s as his agent, proceeded
to make Siey&s a Director. That cold, clever, cowardly man
was glad to find that his abilities, which everybody but
himself had seemed so long to underrate, were beginning at
last to be appreciated. Mirabeau had once said in one of
his finest flights of oratory that the silence and inactivity
of Sieyes were nothing less than a public calamity. But
silence and inactivity had saved his life, and when men asked
Sieyes what he had done during the Terror, he who had
previously incurred the enmity of Robespierre had some
reason to be proud-of his reply — ‘I lived.’

It was in the month of May that the annual retirement of
one Director took place. The name was drawn by lot, but
it needed no special powers of perception to discern behind
the hand of chance the hand of Barras. The unpopularity
in which all the Directors shared had seemed recently to
concentrate upon Rewbell, and it was therefore no surprise
when Rewbell’s name emerged from the urn in May 1799,
and any awkward questions which he might have asked as
to the regularity of the proceeding were silenced by a
generous parting gift from his grateM colleagues.

They had intended to replace him by a dummy, but to
their annoyance the Assembly insisted upon nominating, and
the Senate upon electing, Sieyes, a result to which, in the
words of the best historian of the epoch 4 ‘Talleyrand had
contributed by some backstair manoeuvre.' His enemy had
been removed, his ally had been appointed, and now nothing
remained but, with the assistance of that ally, to carry out
his policy.

While Sieybs was returning from Berlin, where he had

io6 THE DIRECTORY

been acting as French. Ambassador, elections took place to
refill the vacancies caused by the annual retirement of one-
third of the Members of the Assembly. The result was a
victory for the Jacobins, so that when the new Director
arrived in Pari^ he found that it was for the moment the
Red Terror rather than the White which was principally
occupying the minds of his nervous colleagues. It appeared,
indeed, not improbable that the violent extremists, who
less than ever represented the will of the majority, might
once more obtain control of Paris.

The Directory was terrified. Barras, playing, as ever,
for his own hand only, was intriguing with the Assembly
against the other Directors, and such force was brought to
bear that the election of one of them was annulled and two
others were compelled to resign. Of the three new Directors
one was Roger Ducos, who was expected to prove a tool of
Barras, but disappointed expectations by becoming instead
a tool of Siey^s. Another was Gohier, of whom little is to be
recorded except that he entertained hopes of becoming the
lover of Josephine Bonaparte, who was an intimate friend
of his wife. The last Director to be appointed to that office
was General Moulins, a melancholy and quite undis-
tinguished soldier. Neither he nor anybody else ever under-
stood why he was selected for tliis important position. He
stumbles into the pages of history, muttering gloomily, and
wondering why he has been sent for. . At the end of four
months he escapes through a window and regains the
obscurity from which he should never have emerged.

But the Jacobins were not content with their victory,
nor prepared to leave even the reconstructed Directory in
peace. The press, which had been muzz-led since Fructidor,
became once more vocal, and the scandals of the Directory
provided sufficient material for some fifty new newspapers,
which, together with a spate of pamphlets, suddenly

THE DIRECTORY

107

sprang into being. One of the most popular objects of attack
was the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose public and
private morals, whose notorious corruption, and whose sus-
pected designs against the Republic furnished an easy
target for every tyro in the profession of slinging ink.
Talleyrand realised that the time had come to sink a little
further into the background and, appearing to bow his head
to the storm, he resigned his office at the end of July, having
arranged that his successor should be Reinhard, a man
upon whom he could rely, and who could not arrive in
Paris for several weeks as he was Ambassador at Florence.
In his absence Talleyrand continued to fill his place, and on
his return Reinhard adopted the policy of his predecessor.

Meanwhile SieySs was cautiously preparing his plans.
‘Two things are needed,’ he said to Fouche, whose appoint-
ment he had secured as Minister of Police— -‘a head and a
sword.’ So far as the head was concerned Sieyes was very
well satisfied with his own. He had, in fact, the greatest
contempt for all others. But whose was to be the sword.?
That of Bonaparte seemed indicated. He had been careful,
when in Paris, to pander to Sieyfes’s insatiable appetite for
flattery and had produced a favourable impression. But to
Bonaparte there was one insuperable objection. He was in
Egypt. Time was short. If Sieyes did not strike soon the
Jacobins might strike first. Any morning might see the
guillotine mounted again in the Place de la Revolution, and
the first head to fall under it would be that of the ci-devant
Abb^ Siey^;s.

In these circumstances the choice fell upon Joubert. He
was young, the same age as Bonaparte, under whom he had
served with great distinction in Italy; he was handsome v^d

THE DIRECTORY

io8

popular, a romantic figure, and lie was in Paris. But before
the great task could be enti listed to him he must win a great
victory, so he was given the command of the Army of
Italy, and sent off to inflict a spectacular defeat upon the
enemies of France.

But the plan failed, for at the battle of Novi it was the
enemies of France who proved victorious, and one of the
first to fall was the gallant young General, upon whose
brow Siey^;s had thought to lay the wreath that was destined
for another.

The work had to be resumed from the beginning. Once
more the conspirators looked round for the sword that was
to save tlieni. For four months no news had been received
from Bonaparte, and people in Paris imagined him still
battling in the wilds of Syria with the army of Turkey in
front of him and the fleet of England behind. Talleyrand,
who had taken part in the plot to promote Joubert, as he
took part in every plot that was spun, came forward now with
the proposal that negotiations should be opened with
Turkey in order to conclude a treaty whereby, in return for
the restitution of Egypt, Bonaparte and his army should be
allowed to return to France. I'he plan was adopted by the
Government, and Talleyrand hoped that his friend’s sword
might thus be placed at the disposal of SieySs in the spring
of the following year if the coup d’dtat could be postponed
so long. He did not know tliat Napoleon was already at
sea, having sailed from Alexandria a week after the battle
of Novi.

Time pressed. While the vessel that bore Napoleon
and his fortunes was dodging across the Mediterranean
and narrowly escaping encounter with an English ship,
events were moving so rapidly in Paris that Siey^s was
already at his wit’s end to discover a saviour of society who
would accept the job. There was Bernadotte, already well

THE DIRECTORy

log

advanced on the career that was to lead him to a throne;
but the future King of Sweden was at this time too pro-
nounced a Jacobin for the kind of coup d’etat that Siey&s
was planning and was, in fact, being urged by the Jacobins
to make a coup d’etat on their behalf. Besides, Sieyes had
no confidence in him and said: ‘He looks like an eagle but
is really a goose.’ There was Macdonald— but he was a
soldier and nothing but a soldier, in the finest sense of the
word. Finally there was Moreau, a soldier too, and one
whose fame would be fairer if he had never been lured,
always against his will, into the labyrinth of politics. Sieyes
tried them all, and it was while he was in conversation with
Moreau, urging him to accept the task, that news arrived
of Bonaparte’s landing at Frejus. ‘There’s your man,’
exclaimed Moreau, and Sieyes, who had always feared that
Bonaparte might prove to be something more than his man,
was reluctantly compelled to agree.

9

Napoleon made straight for Paris. Private reasons as well
as public hastened his steps. News which had reached him
in Egypt of the failures of the Directory had been ac-
companied by reports of the infidelity of his wife. She,
anxious to meet him before her accusers, hurried out along
the road by which she thought r e would come. But she was
mistaken and missed him, so that the little house in the Rue
Chantereine was empty when he arrived there on the morn-
ing of 1 6th October. He brought with him nothing but
the clothes he stood in, for the whole of his luggage— such
was the state of France— had been stolen by brigands on
the way.

When Josephine returned she was, after a violent scene,
forgiven, and did her best during the crowded days that

no

THE DIRECTORY

followed to make up by her zeal in her husband’s service
for any errors of which she may have been guilty during his
absence. She was an excellent hostess and this small house
became her admirably. It had been built for Julie Talma,
the gay and wealthy wife of the great actor. There was a
courtyard in front and a garden behind, an oval dining-
room and a circular boudoir decorated with Pompeian
paintings, the latest fashion of the day. It was as suitable a
setting for Josephine, with her fading beauty and her
tarnished fame, as it was a strange one for the thin young
soldier in his plain attire and the scarred and bronzed
veterans who thronged around him, telling stories of cam-
paigns under distant suns and clanking their heavy sabres
on the parquet floor. Not that Josephine had omitted to
impart a military touch to her decorations. In her bedroom
drums were made to serve as stools, the backs of the chairs
were shaped like crossbows supported by sheaves of arrows,
and the bed itself was in the shape of a tent.

Within this frame of fashionable elegance the plot was
laid that was to change the history of France. Against this
background of pretty women, which gave to all an air of
frivolity and flirtation, came and w6nt the soldiers, lawyers,
politicians, and diplomatists who were playing a desperate
game, upon the result of which their own heads as well as.
the fate of their country depended.

We have a portrait of Talleyrand from the pen of a
contemporary as he appeared* at the nightly reunions in the
little salon of the Rue Chantereine— ‘nonchalantly lounging
on a sofa ... his face unchanging and impenetrable, his
hair powdered, talking little, sometimes putting in one
subtle and mordant phrase, lighting up the conversation
with a sparkling flash and then sinking back into his attitude
of distinguished weariness and indifference.’

There is another picture which should be set by the side

THE DIRECTORY

III

of this one if would appreciate the reality of the
drama that was being played. It has been drawn for us by
Talleyrand himself in the pages of his memoirs.

He was living at this time in the Rue Taitbout. The
house had a courtyard in front of it, and from the first floor
two wings stretched out ending in small ‘pavilions’ that
gave on to the street. It was one o’clock in the morning.
By the light of one or two candles Talleyrand and Napoleon
were eagerly discussing the details of their plot. Suddenly
through the night there resounded the clatter of a detach-
ment of cavalry passing down the street. Opposite the
house they halted. Napoleon turned pale and Talleyrand
blew out the candles. Had the blow fallen? Had they
delayed too long? Were these the emissaries of their
enemies come to arrest them? Would they share in a few
hours the fate of all the other leaders of the Revolution?
These were the thoughts that flashed through Talleyrand’s
quick brain as he stole on tiptoe down the corridor to the
window that looked on to the street. For a long while his
small green eyes peered into the gloom of that misty
November night seeking to solve the enigma, while his
ears were stretched for the sound of hammering at the
door.

At last, with a sense of infinite relief, he found the
explanation. The gambling-rooms in the Palais Royal
closed late. Their banker lived in the Rue de Clichy, and
so dangerous were the streets of Paris that nothing less
than a troop of cavalry was considered sufficient to protect
the bearer of the day’s takings on his nightly journey. On
this particular occasion the cab with the money in it had
broken down opposite Talleyrand’s house, and a quarter of
an hour was needed to repair it.

‘The General and I,’ he concludes the story, ‘laughed
heartily at our panic, although it was only natural when one

II2

THE DIRECTORY

knew, as we did, the character of the Directory and the
extremities of which they were capable.’

The delay which occurred between the arrival of Bona-
parte in Paris on i6th October and the striking of the blow
on 9th November was mainly due to the difficulty of estab-
lishing harmonious relations between the military and the
civilian leaders of tlie conspiracy. Sieyhs was a pedant, and
Napoleon combined greatness with pettiness to an unusual
degree. No greater proof of it can be adduced than the
fact that at this moment, when the two men were engaged
upon a scheme in which their whole future was at stake,
they allowed precious days to pass while they wrangled
like a pair of old women as to which ought to pay the first
call upon the other.

Bonaparte seems at first to have thought that h'e might
achieve his object as successfully with the help of Barras
as with that of Siey^s, and it took him some days to realise
that Barras, his former patron, was sunk beyond redemption
and beyond hope of ever serving any useful purpose again.

At last an aide-de-camp was sent to announce that he
would call upon Siey^s at a certain hour on the morrow.
Siey^s, who thought he had been kept waiting too long, sent
a messenger with the reply that the hour selected was not
convenient. Bonaparte, receiving the message when sur-
rounded by a crowd of his supporters, lost his temper,
declared that he had never sent the aide-de-camp, who had
acted without orders, that he paid calls on nobody, but that
people ought to call on him, who was the glory of the
nation.

Talleyrand was horrified at the news. He hurried round
to the Rue Chantereine, where he talked seriously to
Bonaparte. He did not hesitate to reproach him violently
for the folly of his action, and to insist upon his repairing
the blunder at once. His firmness proved completely sue-

THE DIRECTORY

JI3

cessful, and his diplomacy did the rest. Bonaparte called on
Sieyes and on Roger Ducos. The following day Sieyes and
Roger Ducos called on Bonaparte. The two visits were
announced simultaneously in the press. Although Bonaparte
still grumbled that the drums had not been beaten on his
arrival at the Luxembourg, that the large folding doors had
not both been opened, and that he had been kept waiting,
none the less the ice was broken, the first difficulty had
been surmounted, and nothing now remained but to deter-
mine upon the details of the plot.

During the feverish fortnight of intrigue that followed,
the difficulties of the conspirators were increased by the
fact that the five Directors lived in one house, each occupy-
ing different apartments in the Palace of the Luxembourg.
It seemed difficult to conspire with Sieyhs under the nose
of Barras without arousing the latter’s suspicions, until
they hit upon the happy plan of allowing Barras to believe
that he was himself in the conspiracy. More indolent and
pleasure loving than ever, Barras remained convinced until
the last moment that he was in the intimate councils of the
men who had decided upon his fall.

But there were the other Directors to be thought of,
and great secrecy had to be preserved. The task of prepar-
ing the necessary literature, posters, pamphlets, and decrees
had been entrusted to Roederer, who had a ready arid an
able pen. It had nearly landed him at Cayenne after Fruc-
tidor. His name was actually on the list of those to be
deported and it was due to the intervention of Talleyrand
that he was spared. On two occasions during these days it
was necessary for Roederer to see Sieyhs. He was conveyed
there after dark by Talleyrand and was left below in the
carriage while Talleyrand first mounted the stairs to make
sure that the coast was clear and that the Director was alone>

It was typical of Talleyrand that in this, as in every

H

THE DIRECTORY

114

Other channel of the vast labyrinth of intrigue, he fulfilled
himself no definite function, but served only as the go-
between, acquainted with everybody, knowing everything,
and holding in his hands the end of every string.

10

Nothing could have been worse planned nor worse per-
formed than the coup d’etat that now took place. The most
important quality of a coup d’etat is speed. It should be
over before those who are likely to oppose it are aware it has
begun. No moment should be allowed for the forces of the
other side to organise. Yet this was deliberately designed
to occupy two days. It should be ruthless. Men who are
smashing a system of government must not be afraid of
breaking a law. But these conspirators were so scrupulous
in their observation of forms that they seemed to be attempt-
ing to do nothing unconstitutional except destroy the Con-
stitution. Above all, success must usually depend upon
the calmness and decision of the leader. At the critical
moment Napoleon lost his head.

At six o’clock in the morning of the 9th November
(18 Brumaire) Roederer called on Talleyrand. He brought
with him his son who, under the pretence of becoming a
printer’s apprentice, had been busy for days printing the
notices which his father had composed, and with which at
this early hour the walls of Paris were already plastered.

Talleyrand was still dressing. They had, he said, an hour
to spare, and they had better employ it in writing out
Barras’s resignation. They were to make it as easy for him
as possible. Talleyrand never drafted anything himself if
there was somebody fclse to do it, and accordingly Roederer
dictated to his son a brief but dignified statement which,
after a few corrections, obtained Talleyrand’s approval. He

THE DIRECTORY

115

slipped it into his pocket, and the three of them drove off
together to the town hall of the department, which was
situated in the Place Vendhme.

Barras’s resignation having been drawn up, the next step
was to induce him to sign it. Admiral Bruix was the man
whom Talleyrand had selected for this task, and before
midday they proceeded together to the Luxembourg.
Barras had had an anxious morning. He believed himself
to be so deeply involved in the conspiracy that it seemed to
him impossible that it could now be taking place without
his co-operation. Gradually the truth was brought home to
him. Of his four colleagues Siey^s and Roger Ducos had
already disappeared while the insignificant Gohier and
Moulins were loudly demanding his assistance. Josephine
had been detailed to look after Gohier, and had sent him a
note urging to him to visit her at eight o’clock that morning.
It was hoped that he would then have been persuaded to
form one of the escort of generals and prominent people
who accompanied Napoleon on his ride to the Tuileries.
But Gohier, either scenting danger or being too experienced
a voluptuary to appreciate a rendezvous at such an early
hour, refused the invitation, so that he and Moulins, two
marionettes whose strings for the moment nobody was
concerned to pull, were left impotently gesticulating in the
Luxembourg, and appealing to Barras for assistance, who
sent, for an answer, that he was still in his bath.

Th^rese Tallien came to see him' in the course of the
morning, cheerful, confident, and beautiful as ever; so did
the financier, Ouvrard, who, although he did not mention
the fact, had already promised pecuniary assistance to the
contrivers of the coup d’dtat. The table was, as usual, kid
for thirty, such was th6 scale on which the Director enter-
tained, but no other guests arrived that morning, and Barras
and Ouvrard were sitting down at one end of the long

ii6 THE DIRECTORY

table to a melancholy meal when Bruix and Talleyrand were
announced.

Barras had wits enough to appreciate the situation, and
when what was required of him had been explained he did
not take long to persuade. Perhaps he thought himself
fortunate fo escape so lightly, he who had sent many others
to their death. He signed the resignation that had been
prepared for him and promised to give no further trouble.
In his memoirs he denies that he received at the same time
a substantial sum of money, and suggests that if there had
been any intention of offering it to him Talleyrand must
have retained it for himself. There is no reason to believe
him. He had taken bribes all his life and had seldom had
anything more valuable to sell than was his acquiescence
upon this occasion. He left Paris immediately for his
country seat. A troop of cavalry was sent with him to pro-
tect him on his journey and to make sure that he did not
return.

II

So far all had gone well. The Council, in which Sieyhs
could command a majority, had met early the same morning,
having been summoned by a special message which had
failed to reach some sixty members of whose support the
conspirators were uncertain. Those who obeyed fhe sum-
mons had been informed that the Jacobins had set on foot a
dangerous plot to overthrow the Republic, and that there-
fore, in accordance with the powers entrusted to it by the
Constitution, 'the Council decreed that both Chambers should
meet on the following day at St. Cloud, where they would be
removed from the menace of force which the Jacobins might
exercise in 'the capital.

The Assembly met later in the day. They were taken by
surprise. The decree passed by the Coqncil was com-

THE DIRECTORY 117

municated to them, and before they had had time to consider
it ’the sitting was adjourned until the morrow by the
President, Lucien Bonaparte.

On the following day the scene changed to St. Cloud,
Talleyrand drove down there in the morning accompanied
by the Roederers, father and son, and by des Renaudes, who
had been Vicar-General when he was Bishop of Autun, and
who remained his devoted secretary and friend all his life.
They had arranged for a house to be placed at their dis-
posal, and there a continual stream of messengers kept them
informed of every incident that took place on that eventful
day.

There they learnt how Bonaparte had appeared in the
Council, how he had failed completely in his attempt to
address them, and had done far more harm than good to his
cause. Then came the news that he had entered the As-
sembly, where he had been greeted with cries of ‘Down
with the tyrant,’ that some of the deputies had laid violent
hands upon him, and that he had been rescued by his
grenadiers. Next it was reported that the Alsembly was
outlawing him. That terrible cry of 'Hors la hi!' had sent
Robespierre, the dictator, to his doom. When this news
reached him, Talleyrand turned at once to Montrond and
told him to go and inform Bonaparte. Montrond found him
with Siey^s and Roger Ducos. When he heard that he was
being outlawed, Bonaparte, who had never shown emotion
in battle, turned pale, whereas the timid Siey^s, the man of
, peace, remained calm and said firmly: ‘If they seek to out-
law you they are outlaws themselves,’ Stirred to action
Bonaparte then met the cry of 'Hors la hi!' with the only
effective rejoinder — 'Aux armes!'

’ But there was further hesitation and further delay. It
was not until Lucien, who was fighting nobly for his brother
within the Assembly, sent a message that something must

ii8 THE DIRECTORY

be^done immediately, that Napoleon was spurred, first to
send in his soldiers to ‘rescue’ Lucien, although Lucien was
in no danger, and then, fortified by the presence of Lucien
who, as President of the Assembly, lent a shadow of legality
to the deed, to allow Murat to charge into the Chamber at
the head of a column, and to disperse the terrified deputies
at the point of the bayonet. Through doors and windows
and every available exit they vanished into the deepening
shades of night.

When the information reached Talleyrand he turned to
Roederer and said: ‘We must dine,’ and he took them, the
two Roederers and Montrond, to dine with a certain Madame
Simons who was living in a small house at Meudon. With
his usual foresight he had arranged beforehand to spend the
evening of the coup d’dtat as agreeably as possible, and
their hostess was expecting them. She had been an actress
and a favourite of Barras and had subsequently married a
wealthy carriage-builder from Brussels, lalleyrand had
been present at the wedding and had signed the register.

It was a pleasant little dinner that they enjoyed that
evening while the republican legislators were wandering
disconsolately in the forest of St. Cloud. But Montrond,
who had seen Napoleon turn pale that day,' kept repeating
at every pause in the conversation: ‘That was not correct,
General Bonaparte, that was not correct:’

Chapter Five

THE CONSULATE

It was the opinion of the Duke de Broglie that the four
years of the Consulate formed one of the two most glorious
periods of French history, the reign of Henri iv being the
other. They were certainly the happiest years of Napoleon’s
life. He used to sing at his work in those days, and sing
very badly, according to his old schoolfellow and private
secretary, Bourrienne. His work was the reconstruction of
France and the pacification of Europe.

He was still young, only thirty years of age, ignorant,
anxious to learn, and not ashamed to be taught. The wisest
and the best liked of his tutors was Talleyrand. ‘He was
always pleased to see Monsieur de Talleyrand,’ writes
Bourrienne, and adds: T have frequently been present at
this great statesman’s conferences with Napoleon, and I
can declare that I never saw him flatter his dreams of am-
bition; but, on the contrary, he always endeavoured to make
him sensible of his true interests.’

Talleyrand did not share Napoleon’s fondness for work.
Naturally lazy he pretended to be lazier than he was and
made a principle of never performing any task himself that
could possibly be delegated to another. If a despatch was to
be written, or a memorandum drawn up, he would hastily
set down in an almost illegible handwriting all that he
wished it to contain without paying any attention to form
or order. One of his subordinates, and the principal ones

H9

120

THE CONSULATE

had worked with him so long that they could interpret his
min’d as well as decipher his handwriting, would then
reduce these rough notes to the correct diplomatic shape and
return it to the chief, who would make numerous corrections,
and it would then, perhaps, be discussed at length between
the two before the document received its final form. There
is a story how, upon one occasion, the head of one of the
departments of the Ministry asked the Minister to write a
letter in his own hand, as the recipient was a ruling prince
of Germany— ‘Must I write it myself.?’ he pleaded. ‘Yes,
to an Elector.’ ‘But to write and compose at the same time
is really too much. So I will write but you must dictate it.’

This love of idleness, partly natural and partly affected,
he was prepared to defend as the wisest policy for a diplo-
matist. He discouraged excessive zeal even in his sub-
ordinates, and when he relinquished the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs he said, presenting the permanent officials to his
successor: ‘You will find them loyal, intelligent, accurate,
and punctual, but, thanks to my training, not at all zealous.’
As M. de Champagny evinced some surprise, he continued,
affecting a most serious manner: ‘Yes, except for a few of
the junior clerks who, I am afraid, close up their envelopes
with a certain amoimt of precipitation, every one here main-
tains the greatest calm; hurry and bustle are unknown.’

This deliberate manner of conducting business was really
of service to Napoleon, who, working with lightning rapidity
himself, was often glad to find that instructions which he
had given with too little consideration had not been acted
upon several days later, when he was already prepared to
cancel them.

1

It is one of the ironies of history that the main reason for
the popularity of Napoleon's usurpation of power was the

THE CONSULATE

I2I

conviction in the minds of the people that he would bring
them the blessing they most desired, a permanent peace.
Talleyrand, a consistent lover of peace, contributed more
than any other statesman during these early years, when he
was working in complete harmony with his master, towards
the task of pacification both at home and abroad. It was he
who smoothed down relations between Napoleon and
Sieyes, which became after the coup d’titat as acrimonious
as they had been before, and which narrowly escaped leading
to open conflict when Sieyes realised that, whatever in-
genious and intricate shape he might devise for the Con-
stitution, Napoleon was determined that there should be
only one voice in the government of the country.

It was Talleyrand also who brought Napoleon into touch
with emissaries of the Bourbon princes, who were still
uncertain as to whether the victorious General was to prove
a Cromwell or 'a Monk. Hyde de Neuville, who, at the risk
of his life, was at this time hiding in Paris, was enabled
through the agency of Talleyrand to obtain an interview
with Napoleon. So great was the secrecy which it was
considered necessary to observe, that Talleyrand arranged
that Hyde should await him at a corner of the Place Ven-
d6me, where he picked him up in his carriage and drove him
to the Luxembourg. On the way he did not miss the
opportunity of impressing upon the Royalist his own
friendliness towards the Bourbons, and especially his
affection for the Count d’Artois. He did not, however,
encourage the supporters of Louis xviii to hope for any
early developments in their favour. Questioned as to what
was about to happen he replied: ‘Nobody knows the secret
of the future.’ Questioned as to Bonaparte, he said: ‘If he
lasts a year, he will go far.’

The interview, and another one that followed it, led to
nothing. Napoleon had not the slightest intention of play-

122

THE CONSULATE

ing the part designed for him bj^ the Bourbons, and had
only consented to receive their representatives in the hope
of effecting a speedy and peaceful settlement of the civil
strife that still persisted in the west of France. This he
subsequently accomplished by taking the necessary military
measures and by supporting them with a policy that com-
bined firmness, conciliation, and duplicity.

Having thus disposed of his open enemies in -the fields of
La Vendee, the First Consul had to turn his attention to the
more formidable antagonists who awaited him under
various disguises in the streets of the capital. Like the
Directory before him, he found himself between two fires,
and the clue to the history of the Consular period is the
alternating apprehension with which he regarded the dangers
that threatened him from the Royalists upon the one' hand
and from the Jacobins upon the other. His sympathies were
with the former. Indeed there was little to which he objected
in the Royalists except their attachment to the Bourbons.
For the Revolutionaries upon the other hand— from the
loftiest idealist of 1789 to the most bloodstained Terrorist
of 1794— he had nothing but detestation and contempt.
These sentiments inclined him, at first, to the view that he
had most to fear from those whom he most disliked, whereas,
in reality, the Royalists constituted by far the greater menace,
appealing as they did to a larger number of people in the
country, and supported as they were by the wealth and sea
power of Great Britain.

The new Constitution consisted of three Consuls, it being
the duty of the Second and Third to do little more than
supply the First with information and advice. Napoleon
had appointed his two assistants with his customary dis-
crimination and had not, only secured two colleagues upon
whose loyalty he could rely, but had so selected them that*
while the Second Consul, Cambac^r^, seemed to provide a

THE CONSULATE ' 123

pledge of his fidelity to the principles of the Revolution,
the Third Consul, Lebrun, who was noted for leanings
towards the Right, gave ground for hope to those who desired
it that the Government would eventually proceed in that
direction. But neither Cambac^res nor Lebrun was to play
an important part in the events that followed. Among the
Ministers there were only two, if we except Lucien Bonaparte,
who was shortly afterwards dismissed, who had the char-
acter or the ability to become more than mere tools in the
hands of their master. The divergent tendencies in French
politics were more effectively represented by these two
Ministers than they were by the two Consuls. Talleyrand,
who became immediately Minister for Foreign Affairs, was
still a grand seigneur in this world of parvenus., and had
retained not only the fine manners of the old Court but
also most of his associations and friendships with the
proudest families of the aristocracy; whereas Fouch^, the
new Minister of Police, the regicide, the organiser of
massacre on the largest scale, from whom the underworld
of Paris could hold no secrets, remained as the representative
of the jacobins, and as one who was too deeply implicated
in their crimes ever, as it then seemed, to hope for for-
giveness from the Bourbons.

The two Ministers presented a remarkable contrast —
Talleyrand, suave and courteous, as exquisite in dress as in
conversation, restrained in both, and conquering by charm
even his enemies; Fouch6, brutal in manner, foul mouthed
in company, ill dressed, ill washed, with an unprepossessing
appearance which his reputation rendered sinister. Talley-
rand, the ex-bishop, living openly with a beautiful mistress;
Fouchd, the ex-Terrorist, a tender father of a family and
faithful husband of an ugly wife. For Talleyrand the word
politics meant the settlement of dynastic or international
problems, discussed in a ball-room or across a dinner-table;

124 - ■ THE CONSULATE

for Fouchd the same word meant street corner assassination,
planned by masked conspirators in dark cellars. Each had
a shrewd appreciation of the other’s qualities, and when it
suited them they would work together, but they could never
be friends. It was Talleyrand who had advised Sieyes to
secure the assistance of Fouch^ and the latter had played
a somewhat equivocal rhle in the events of Brumaire, but
had hastened to the assistance of the victors as soon as he
was certain who they were. But now Fouche was alarmed
at the turn events were taking and the natural antipathy
between the two men was increased by the different policies
that they pursued.

Napoleon was anxious to assist the return to France, and
to seicure the support, of the old nobility. Public policy and
personal preciilection urged him in the same direction. It
was part of his design to reconcile the old France with the
new, it was part of his vanity to delight in the inclusion
amongst his courtiers of the greatest names that decorate
the pages of French history. Here Talleyrand could prove
of invaluable assistance, and at the costly and elegant
entertainments that he provided Bonaparte met for the
first time such members of the aristocracy as had remained
in France or had ventured to return.

Talleyrand, who believed always in monarchical govern-
ment, did nothing to discourage Napoleon from the goal
towards which he was manifestly directed. He suggested
that in view of the importance and the urgency of the
affairs dealt with in his department and of the desirability of
maintaining secrecy he should make his reports to the First
Consul only and not be compelled, as were the other
Ministers, to consult with all the three. Such a proposal,
which enhanced Bonaparte’s predominance, not unnaturally
received his warm approval.

Later, when the First Consul’s brother-in-law, Leclerc,

THE CONSULATE

125

died of fever in the West Indies, Talleyrand persuaded the
representatives of foreign Powers In Paris to appear at the
Consular Court in mourning, an honour never accorded to
any save royal personages. Napoleon was deeply touched,
and the letters which Talleyrand addressed to him at this
period, couched in terms almost of adoration, provide
interesting evidence as to the amount of flattery which a
great man will gladly swallow. For we may be certain that
such a feast would not have been provided if the donor had
not felt confident that it would be thankfully received.

3

In June of 1 800 the victory of Marengo further tightened
and strengthened the hold of Napoleon upon France. There
is a story, for which little solid evidence can be pro-
duced, that while Napoleon was absent upon this campaign
Talleyrand entered Into a plot with Fouche, Sieyes, and
others, for effecting a coup d’dtat if he met with defeat, and
either re-establishing the Directory or setting up the Duke
of Orleans as king. That Talleyrand and Fouchd were at
this time working together Is improbable, but we need have
' little doubt that they both had some plan in readiness for
the situation which would have arisen had Bonaparte’s
prestige been destroyed by defeat, or had he shared the fate
of Desaix, the true victor of Marengo, who perished In the
hour of victory.

The battle of Marengo was followed by negotiations for
peace with Austria in which Talleyrand played the principal
part, and which he brought to a successful conclusion in
the following year. The Treaty of Luncville was admittedly
a great diplomatic success for France, greater even than
was warranted by her martial triumphs. She gained the left
bank of the Rhine and territories beyond it as her eastern

THE CONSULATE

iz6

frontier. Belgium and Luxembourg were acknowledged to'
be part of France. -She was left in possession of Piedmont,
with the Cisalpine Republic and Liguria under her pro-
tection, and the King of Naples was compelled to maintain
a French garrison at Taranto.

Lately France, had been opposed by nearly the whole of
Europe, now, with her dominions more widely extended
than at any period throughout her history, she saw all her
enemies, save only one, defeated. There is little wonder if
the heads of most Frenchmen were inflamed by success so
dazzling, but that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs
remained cool. To Ouvrard, the great financier, he bbserved:
‘I am well aware what the First Consul ought to do in his
own interest and also in that of the peace of France and of
Europe. Two roads are open to him— the federal system which
leaves each ruler, 'after his defeat, still master in his own
territory on conditions favourable to the victor . . . but on
the other hand does he intend to unite and to incorporate.^
If so he will enter on a course to which there is no end.’
We know which road Napoleon took and whither it
led him.

Among the less important conditions of the Treaty of
Lundville was a clause which gave France the right to take
part in fixing the indemnities to be granted to the various
German princes whose territory had been forfeited. The
duty naturally fell to Talleyrand’s department and proved
the source of enormous increase in his wealth as he did not
scruple to accept bribes and commissions from all who were
interested in the large sums of money that were at stake.

4

Meanwhile another treaty was in process of conclusion,
and one that affected Talleyrand in his private as well as in

THE CONSULATE

127

his public capacity. Napoleon may not have believed in
God, but he certainly believed in the desirability of religion,
and, while his outlook was naturally Erastian, he was
anxious from the first to restore normal relations with the
Papacy. That his Minister for Foreign Affairs should be
an excommunicated priest he regretted, and that he should
be living in open sin with a notorious lady outraged his
profound respect for convention. He was determined that
his Court should be respectable, and when Thdr^se Tallien
appeared at the opera as Diana the Huntress in nothing but
a tiger skin, he had it conveyed to her that mythological
fancy dress was no longer fashionable. So that when he
learnt that the wives of Ambassadors were reluctant to
pay their respects to Madame Grand at the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs he felt that the time had come for him to
put an end to the scandal, and that the negotiations which
were being conducted with the Vatican offered a suitable
opportunity.

His first suggestion was that Talleyrand should resume
the episcopal robes that he had doffed with so very little
ceremony, or that he should exchange them for the more
impressive apparel of a cardinal. But to this proposal
Talleyrand replied with an uncompromising negative. He
had never wanted to be a priest, he had been thankful to
escape from the priesthood, he had never regretted that
action, and he would not re-enter a profession for which he
was honest enough to admit that he was utterly unfitted.

Thwarted in one direction Napoleon turned to another.
If Talleyrand refused to be a cardinal he must at least dis-
miss his mistress, or if he refused to dismiss her he must
make her his wife. To the objection that a married priest
was impossible and a married bishop unthinkable he replied
that the Court of Rome could do anything, and that, while
they were negotiating a settlement upon which the fate of

128

THE CONSULATE

millions of the faithful depended, they could surely slip in a
clause to make things comfortable for Madame Grand.

Even before Napoleon’s intervention Talleyrand had
independently been pressing the Vatican for permission to
forgo his vows of celibacy, with the intention, it was
rumoured, of marrying not Madame Grand but another
lady to whom he was also attached at the. time. The papal
diplomatists were anxious to do everything in their power to
placate him in order to secure the conclusion of the Con-
cordat; some things, however, were beyond their power,
and the Church’s blessing on a bishop’s marriage was one
of them. In vain did Talleyrand ransack history for the
production of precedents. A flaw was found by the experts
of the Vatican in every case, even in that of Caesar Borgia,
who was one of the reverend prelates cited by Talleyrand to
support his argument. Permission was accorded for his
secularisation but with regard to his marriage the Church
was adamant.

It is therefore the more surprising that Talleyrand should,
in this matter, have bowed to the authority of Napoleon or
surrendered to the blandishments of Madame Grand. A
misalliance is more shocking to a Frenchman than to an
Englishman, and Talleyrand was very French in his ap-
preciation of the importance of family, and in his insistence
upon outward correctness of behaviour. Madame Grand
was not only of low origin, but the folly of her conversation
in society was a perpetual reminder of it. She was no longer
young, he had already been living with her for four years
and had not always been faithful, and yet in September 1 802
he settled a fortune on her, and they were publicly married
both according to the civil law and in church. The proud
descendant of one of the olde&t families of France conferred
his name upon one who, to the knowledge of all, had been
little better than a woman of the town; and an ex-bishop

THE CONSULATE

I2g

was joined in holy matrimony to a married woman who had
not even obtained a legal divorce from her first husband.

It is not surprising that his contemporariesj as much
astonished as we can be by Talleyrand’s action, and at a loss
to find the cause of it, were driven to the surmise that
Madame Grand must be in possession of some secret of
which Talleyrand could not afford to risk the discovery,
That so astute a man, who was never outwitted by the best
brains of the age, should have allowed himself to be black-
mailed by a silly woman is more than improbable. Far
easier is it to suppose that, naturally indolent and easy
going, accustomed to the presence of his still beautiful and
good-natured mistress, contemptuous of religion and of
public opinion, he found it difficult to resist pressure brought
to bear upon him from more than one quarter, and con-
sented for the sake of peace and quietness to go through a
ceremony that had for him no significance.

5

One of the first diplomatic documents for which Talley-
rand was responsible after his return to the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs in 1799 ^ England conveying

the desire of the First Consul for the termination of hos-
tilities between the two countries. The British Government
returned a haughty and foolish reply to the effect that the
best guarantee that France could give of her desire for peace
was the immediate recall of her legitimate monarch. For
the Ministers of George iii to preach the doctrine of
legitimacy while the legitimate grandson of James 11 still
lived an exile in Rome, was to lay themselves open to the
charge of insincerity or of remarkably short memories. It
is such actions that have caused Englishmen to be suspected
by foreigners of cant and hypocrisy. Talleyrand was not

130 THE CONSULATE

slow to remind the English Cabinet of the true nature of
their master’s claim to the throne.

So the war dragged on, and, after the conclusion of peace
with Austria, Napoleon was about to concentrate all his
forces upon the destruction of England when two events
occurred which caused him to change his mind.

The most favourable feature of the situation, so far as
the struggle with England was concerned, was the recent
conclusion of an agreement between Russia, Prussia, and the
Scandinavian Powers which under the guise of armed
neutrality effectually closed the ports of northern Europe
to British shipping and practically rendered the states in
question the allies of Napoleon. But the unstable polity of
Russia depended upon the whims of a mad autocrat who
had been led by judicious flattery into a kind of hero worship
for the First Consul. On the night of 22nd March 1801 a
palace revolution put an end to the Czar Paul and to his
policy. Alexander, his successor, had, at present, no admira-
tion for Napoleon, and was determined to improve his
relations with England. A few days later Nelson defeated
the Danish fleet at Copenhagen, and the English were once
more masters of the Baltic.

Napoleon was therefore compelled to revise his projects
and the altered conditions of Europe lent weight to Talley-
rand’s advocacy of the negotiation of peace with England.
There also an important event had taken place in the month
of March, namely the resignation of Pitt after nearly twenty
years of office. But while the Czar Paul still lived, while
Pitt was still Prime Minister, and before Nelson had sailed
for the North, Talleyrand had taken the first step towards
peace by despatching, in January, the faithful Montrond to
England. It was possible in those days, while a war was
proceeding, for an envoy of one belligerent to be hospitably
received in the capital of another, and ‘k beau Montrond,

THE CONSULATE 131

who spoke English well, was always a popular figure in
London society— ‘Who the devil is this Montrond?’ asked
the Duke of York. ‘They say,’ somebody'replied, ‘that he
is the most agreeable scoundrel and the greatest roud in
France.’ ‘Really,’ said the Duke, ‘then we must immediately
ask him to dinner.’

Montrond had no doubt kept Talleyrand well informed
of every development in English politics, and he was aware
that Addington, the new Prime Minister, and Hawkesbury,
the new Foreign Secretary, would prove very much easier
to deal with than Mr. Pitt. In fact the principal difficulty
that Talleyrand and his diplomatic representatives en-
countered in concluding a satisfactory treaty .for France
came rather from the intransigence of Napoleon than from
any obstinacy on the part of the English Government. The
latter indeed were willing to relinquish nearly all the con-
quests of the last ten years. The Cape of Good Hope,
Demerara, and Surinam went back to the Dutch; Spain
recovered Minorca; Martinique and Guadeloupe were
returned to France; and Malta was to be restored to the
Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Ceylon and Trinidad
were all that remained and, if it had not been for the insist-
ence of Talleyrand, Napoleon would have allowed negotia-
tions to break down rather than allow the English to retain
possession of the island of Trinidad.

The preliminaries of peace were signed in London in
October 1801 and both in London and Paris the news was
received with acclamation. The salvos of cannon that con-
veyed the announcement to the people of Paris were the
first intimation which Talleyrand received that the prelimin-
aries had been signed, for the couriers had gone direct to
the First Consul, who had not troubled to send a personal
message to his Minister for Foreign Affairs. Talleyrand
was annoyed, and had his revenge a few months later when

132 THE CONSULATE

the final treaty was concluded at Amiens. On this occasion
he was the first to be informed and appeared before
Napoleon one morning with the customary bundle of papers
that contained the business of the day. It was only after
all the routine work had been disposed of that he finally
produced one remaining document and nonchalantly ob-
served: ‘Here is something that will please, you. It is the
Treaty of Amiens, which has been signed.’ ‘Why didn’t
you tell me at once demanded Napoleon in astonishment.
‘Because I knew that if I did,’ calmly replied Talleyrand,
‘you would not have attended to any other business this
morning.’

6

Among the many English people who availed themselves
of the Peace of Amiens to pay a long-desired visit to Paris
came Charles Fox, bringing with him the lady he had
recently married. Resembling Talleyrand in his love of
pleasure and passion for gambling, he had also acted like
him in marrying his mistress, and indeed the career of Bet
Armistead had been even less conventional and more
unblushingly professional than that of Catherine Worlde.
So much was this the case that Lady Bessborough, who was
also in Paris at the time, was surprised that Madame de
Talleyrand should consent to receive Mrs. Fox and to pay
her, as was said, great attention.

Lady Bessborough herself was careful whom she visited,
although care for the conventions was not the distinguishing
mark of her career. ‘I will not visit Madame Cabarrus,’ she
writes to Granville Leveson Gower', referring to Madame
Tallien, ‘though I hope to see her to-morrow. Your natural
sense of justice makes you place Madame Talleyrand in the
same line, but power and marriage make so great a difference
here that not visiting the latter would be reckoned a ridicule.’

THE CONSULATE

133

In another letter she describes a dinner-party at the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs. ‘I never saw anything so
magnificent — the apartments beautiful, all perfumed with
frankincense {fela sent I'Eveqtie') and as soon as seventy-
eight people (of which the company consisted) sat down, an
immense glass at the end of the room slid away by degrees,
and soft and beautiful music began to pl.ry in the midst of
the jingle of glasses and vaisselle. The dinner was, I believe,
excellent but from some awkwardness in the arrangement
it was very difficult to get anything to eat. Madame Talley-
rand is like the Duchess of Cumberland and perfectly
justifies the reason he gave for marrying her: ‘"'Qu’elle
emporte h prix de la bStise.” ’

To Lady Bessborough, most charming of correspondents,
we owe also an account of a conversation between Fox and
Talleyrand. She was an intimate friend of Fox and he no
doubt repeated it to her soon after it had taken place.
Talleyrand ‘asked him if he approved of the peace. Mr.
Fox said he liked peace better than war, but that he could
not conceive a worse than what we had made, Talleyrand
told him it was lucky for France that England gave way,
for that Bonaparte had declared repeatedly that he must
have given up the chief points in dispute had they been
persisted in. . . . This is a secret and moreover very possibly
not true as Talleyrand is, I believe, a great flourisher.’

Fox and Lady Bessborough were Whigs and would not
have approved of any treaty concluded by Addington's
Government, but the Peace of Amiens certainly was a very
good one for France and a very bad one for England.
Lord Cornwallis who signed it on behalf of the latter country
was the same whb, twenty-one years earlier, had been com-
pelled to capitulate to the Americans at Yorktown. A man
of ability and high character, he seemed destined to do his
country harm and he was even less capable of negotiating

THE CONSULATE

m

with Talleyrand than he had been of fighting against
Washington. In return for all tlrat England gave up she
received no commercial advantages, her merchants continued
to be treated in France as alien enemies, nor had she any
guarantee that Napoleon would set a limit to his ambitious
schemes on the continent of Europe. Talleyrand, preferring
always permanent peace to temporary triumph, said that he
would rather have made a treaty far mote favourable to
England if it had but borne the signature of Pitt or Fox
instead of that of Addington. He was right. Neither the
Treaty of Amiens nor the premiership of Addington was
destined to last for many months.

Nevertheless, as a Frenchman and a faithful Minister of
the First Consul, Talleyrand had every reason to be proud of
his work. In the short space of two years France had been
raised from humiliation to supremacy. Victory abroad had
produced peace, clemency at home had silenced discord.
If Napoleon had at this moment been capable of moderating
his thirst for dominion the history of the world would have
been altered. Talleyrand knew it and strove in vain to
influence his master. Napoleon was bent upon incorporat-
ing Piedmont in France, Talleyrand was anxious to restore
it to its legitimate ruler. He went so far as to warn the
British Ambassador of Napoleon’s projects and the famous
scene at which Napoleon insulted Lord Whitworth before
the whole diplomatic corps was partly due, as he himself
admitted, to the irritation that he was feeling as the result
of Talleyrand’s representations.

There is no reason to doubt Talleyrand's own assertions
with regard to the line that he adopted at this time. His
conviction as to the desirability of peace, *and above all of
peace between France and England, never altered. He was
not afraid of Napoleon, his personality was not dominated
fts were those of the other Ministers, he had a clear vision

THE CONSULATE

^35

of the policy that would, be best for France, he saw plainly
whither Napoleon’s ambition was driving him, and all
contemporary evidence agrees that his influence was exerted
against the resumption of war.

He failed, and it is easy to say that having failed he should
have resigned his office. But it would indeed hav£ shown
an ^tachment to principle amounting to pedantry volun-'
tarily to have quitted Napoleon’s service in that splendid,
and still unclouded, dawn of his achievement. No useful
purpose would have been served by resignation, l.ess com-
petent hands and a more subservient brain would have been
set to grapple with the task, and the young autocrat would
have been deprived of the ablest councillor that he pos-
sessed, and the one best qualified to act as a brake upon his
headlong progress. In May 1803, fourteen months after
the signature of the Treaty of Amiens, war between England
and France broke out again.

In the summer of this year Napoleon undertook a tour
of northern France and Belgium. Talleyrand with whom, at
this period, he was in continual consultation accompanied
him, and it was during this journey that he laid the basis of a
lasting friendship with Madame de R^musat. Although
Bonaparte bore still no higher title than that of First Consul
and although there was no place in the Constitution for his
wife, already he was beginning to put on all the trappings of
royalty and was glad to find in Madame de R^musat a
member of the aristocracy who was content to act as lady-
in-waiting to Josephine.

Madame de Rdmusat, like Madame de la Tour du Pin,
was a good woman who, starting with prejudices against
Talleyrand, found it impossible to resist his charm. ‘The
elegance of his manners was such a contrast with the
rough ways of the soldiers by whom I was surrounded. He
maintained always amidst, them the unmistakable appear-

THE CONSULATE

136

ance of a grand seigneur. The contempt of his silence was
impressive. . . . More artificial than anybody, he was able
to build up a natural character out of a thousand affectations.
He retained them in every situation as though they had
become his real nature. His way of always treating serious
subjects. frivolously was of great assistance to him. . . .

‘One of the first things that struck me when I talked
with him a little was his complete lack of any illusion or of
any enthusiasm regarding what was taking place around
us.’ All others, both the soldiers and the politicians, even
her husband, who had accepted a post at Court, were duly
impressed by the great events that every day produced, and
she herself was deeply moved by them. ‘The calm and the
indifference of M. de Talleyrand disconcerted me. “Good
heavens,” I dared to say to him one day, “how can you bear
to live and to act without receiving any emotion from what
is happening, nor from your actions?” “Ah, how young
you are, and how much a woman” {Ah que vous ites
jeune et que vous ites femme), he replied, and then he
began to make fun of me as of everything else. His raillery
hurt me but made me smile and I was angry with myself
for being amused by his jokes and for allowing my vanity
at bejng able to appreciate his wit to lessen my dislike for
the coldness of his heart. Indeed, I did not yet knpw him,
and it was only later, when I lost that feeling of shyness
which overcomes every one who meets him for the first time,
that I was able to observe the curious mixture of which his
character is composed.’

7

The gradual assumption of supreme power by the First
Consul during the five years of the Consulate did not pass
entirely without protest on the.- part of people who still

THE CONSULATE

137

believed in some of the principles of the Revolution.
Benjamin Constant was one of those who had thought that
under the new regime parliamentary privileges would be
tolerated and that freedom of speech would be permitted
in the Senate, the Tribunate, and the Legislature. He was
soon undeceived. On the evening after the first declamation
in which he had dared to make open allusion to the autocratic
tendencies of Bonaparte, it so happened that his faithful
friend, Madame de Stael, was giving a dinner-party with
the object, no doubt, of collecting congratulations upon
Benjamin Constant’s eloquence. Unfortunately, however, it
so happened that all her guests, and Talleyrand, who owed so
much to her, among them, were prevented at the last moment
from accepting the invitation. The age of oratory was over.

Republicanism thus driven underground is lost sight of,
and it is difficult to say whether it remained as formidable
as Napoleon affected to think it. Fouch^, as Minister of
Police, dealt with the Jacobins rather as professional rat
destroyers are said to deal with their quarry, sacrificing a
certain number from time to time in order to satisfy their
clients, but leaving a sufficient stock to render their further
services necessary. Fouch^ knew the Jacobins and did not
fear them. When popular clamour or ■ the First Consul’s
suspicions demanded a victim Fouch6 would select one, or
several, of whom for some private reason he did not approve.
When a serious attempt was made upon Bonaparte’s life by
the explosion of an infernal machine, Fouch^ knew that the
plot had been hatched and carried ouf by Royalists but
public outcry led by Bonaparte himself denounced the
Jacobins and, since Fouch^’s own position was in danger
and he could not for the moment lay his hands upon the
real criminals, he drew up a list of a hundred and thirty
Jacobins, who were sentenced to deportation. Talleyrand
and the other enemies of Fouchd made the most of the

THE CONSULATE

138

incident to secure his downfall, accusing him of complicity
with his former allies, but their case was considerably
weakened when he succeeded in producing the actual
culprits, who proved, as he had asserted, to be Royalists.

He was less successful in the following year in clearing
himself of suspicion' of being involved in a more formidable
but less developed conspiracy of which the background was
the army and the figure-head no less a person than
Bernadette. Talleyrand had the satisfaction of persuading
Napoleon to abolish the post of Minister of Police, but
Fouchd’s disgrace was only partial and he remained on
friendly terms with Napoleon, who appreciated the value of
his knowledge, experience, and advice.

The successful suppression of both the pretended and the
real conspiracy freed Napoleon from further anxiety with
regard to the activities both of Jacobins and of moderate
Republicans. Only then was he gradually and against his
will compelled to realise that the danger which threatened
him lay in another quarter. His tenure of the First Con-
sulate had been extended for ten years and then for life; the
stream of former emigrants returning to France continued to
Sow, and few were too proud to take service'under the new
master whose household took on daily a greater resemblance
to a royal court. Two incidents, however, occurred about
this time which opened his eyes to the insecurity of his
position* Emboldened by the facility with which he ap-
peared to be achieving all his objects, and with the founda-
tion of his dynasty already in sight, he caused the suggestion
to be officially conveyed to the Bourbons that, in return for
a very substantial settlement of their proprietary claims in
France, they should renounce their rights to the throne.
The reply of Louis xviii was firm, dignified, and must have
made Napoleon feel that he had been foolish to make the
proposal and need never repeat it.

THE CONSULATE

139

At the beginning of the year 1804 the most formidable
conspiracy which had yet threatened the Government and
the life of Napoleon was discovered. Moreau, the victor of
Hohenlinden, was involved; Pichegru, the conqueror of
Holland, was deeply implicated; Georges Cadoudal, the
Breton peasant, who was the very soul of the Royalist party,
was the moving spirit.

Napoleon’s eyes were opened. He realised at last that
however glad the old nobility might be to return to their
native country, however willingly they might do lip service
to the risen star, he could never be, cither for them or for
the peasants of La Vendee, the natural and legitimate ruler
of France; that between himself and the Bourbons there
was a gulf fixed which diplomacy could never bridge; and
that some terrible event, w'hich should startle Europe, was
required in order to paralyse conspiracy and stifle dis-
affection.

8

The execution of the Duke of Enghien is the blackest
deed in the career of Napoleon. It was a political crime of
the first order which it is impossible to defend. Nor can
Talleyrand be acquitted of some share in the guilt; but
whether, as alleged by his enemies, he was the principal
criminal, must remain doubtful.

The Duke was not only the least blameworthy but the
most admirable of the Bourbon princes. He alone, while
prepared to fight for the rights of his family, had refused to
have any dealings with the conspirators who sought to attain
their ends by plots and assassination. Young, handsome,
and chivalrous he resembled more a hero of romance than a
prince of the nineteenth century. At the time of his arrest
he was neither scheming against Napoleon nor giving a
thought to politics but was living quietly at Ettenheim in

THE CONSULATE

140

the state of Baden, and paying court to a lady to whom he was
passionately devoted. He was the son of the Duke of
Bourbon, grandson of the Prince of Condd, and so heir to
the most illustrious name in France.

On loth March 1804 Napoleon held a council at which
Talleyrand was present, where it was determined to send a
small armed force into the territory of Baden for the purpose
of 'kidnapping the Duke. During the night of 14th March
this decision was carried out and on the afternoon of 20th
March he arrived at the castle of Vincennes where two
hours earlier his grave had been dug. After a short examina-
tion which cannot be called a trial, he was condemned, and
was shot in the disused moat of the castle at half-past two
the following morning. He behaved with the greatest
courage and dignity throughout.

Chateaubriand claims, in his memoirs, to have seen a
letter from Talleyrand to Napoleon, dated 8th March,
■suggesting and recommending the arrest of the Duke.
Independent and strongly corroboratory evidence as to the
existence of this same document is given by Mdneval,
Napoleon’s private secretary, through whose hands it must
have passed. He states that the letter referred to a con-
versation which had taken place between the writer and the
First Consul the day before, that the gist of it was to urge
that action should be taken against all the conspirators,
however highly placed, and that the safety of the State
demanded it because the people, while content with the
existing Government, were still uncertain whether Bonaparte
did not intend to play the r6le of Monk and recall the
Bourbons to the throne. The letter went on to suggest the
name of the officer to whom the arrest of the Duke should
be entrusted.

In the year 1814, afteir the downfall of Napoleon and
before the arrival of Louis xviii, Talleyrand had the op-

THE CONSULATE

141

portunity, of which he availed himself, to destroy such
documents in the archives of the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs as might subsequently prove compromising. Both
Chateaubriand and Mdneval allege that by an oversight the
letter in question escaped destruction. Yet we have no
evidence save theirs that it ever existed or that it was ever
seen by other eyes. They were both bitter enemies of
Talleyrand.

At the time Napoleon accepted full and sole responsibility
for the deed, fie could not have done otherwise. A dictator
cannot blame others for what is done in his name unless he
punishes them. Nor can he admit to error. In after years,
however, he frequently stated in private conversation that
Talleyrand was the originator of the idea. Josephine,
according- to Hortense, had heard him say so, and Roederer
gives evidence to the same effect. At St. Helena he repeated
it, and on one occasion he reproached Talleyrand with it, in
public, to his face. Napoleon, of course, could repeat the
same thing many times without its being true, but there is a
curious similarity in all the evidence. On each occasion
Napoleon is represented as saying that he did not even know
who the Duke of Enghien was, nor where he was living,
until Talleyrand brought him the information.

On the morning after the execution Talleyrand was
working at the Ministry with the Count d’Hauterive, head
of the southern department and a devoted adherent of his
chief. Like everybody else in Paris he was shocked and
horrified at the news, and made so little effort to conceal his
emotion that at last Talleyrand was obliged to comment on
it. ‘What’s the matter with you?’ he asked testily, ‘with
your eyes starting out of your head ?’ ‘The matter with me ?’
replied Hauteiive, ‘Why you would feel the same if you
had read the Monheur. What a horrible event 1’ ‘Come,
come,’ said Talleyrand, very calmly, ‘are you mad? What

142

THE CONSULATE

13 there to make such a fuss about? A conspirator is cap-
ered near the frontier, he is brought to Paris and shot.
What is there so extraordinary about that?’ This anecdote
bears the hall mark of truth. We can almost see the scene
and hear the tones of the shocked official and the irritated
Minister. The fact that the official was shocked was the
cause of the Minister’s irritation for he realised that the
Government had committed a blunder, which in his eyes
was worse than a crime, that where they had meant to strike
terror they had roused horror, and that the voice of Hauterive
that morning was the voice of France.

9

Long afterwards, when Louis xviii had been for nine
years on the throne, Savary, who had been created by
Napoleon Duke of Rovigo, and who had been present at
the condemnation of the Duke, standing behind the judge,
found himself attacked in the press for the part that he had
played. His defence was to claim that he had merely acted
as a soldier obeying orders, and that the real guilt was to be
attributed to Talleyrand.

Although Talleyrand was in the country at the time he
immediately hastened to Paris indignantly to deny the
charge, and he addressed a lengthy letter to the King
demanding a full investigation by the House of Peers. This
was refused, but the King made it plain that he accepted
Talleyrand’s statement of innocence and the Duke of
Rovigo was forbidden the Court.

In his memoirs Talleyrand asserts that his part in the
affair was limited to his presence at the council where the
decision was taken, and to his signature of the necessary
documents emanating from his department. These included
two despatched to the French representative in the state of

THE CONSULATE

H3

Baden explaining and excusing the violation of territory,
and a letter of instructions to the officer who was charged
with the arrest. He does not claim to have opposed the
proposal when it was brought before the council. The only
member ’who ventured to do so, curiously enough, was
Cambacdr^s who was supposed to represent the revolu-
tionary interest in the Consulate.

Talleyrand further defends himself on the ground that
such an action was entirely out of keeping with his character
and his record. I'his is true, for he was neither cruel nor
violent. He also demands what interest he could have had
in tendering such advice. While it is easy to suggest motives,
such as a desire to strengthen his position with Napoleon
by making him an accomplice in crime, it must at the same
time be admitted that it was never his policy to close any
avenue of retreat and that, as we have seen, he had con-
stantly in mind the possibility of his own reconciliation with
the Bourbons, which the proof of his responsibility for the
execution must have endangered or rendered impossible.

The lack of sufficient motive is indeed the strongest
argument in favour of suspending judgment, although it is
impossible at this distance of time to unravel the tangled
web of policy at the bottom of such an intricate and so pro-
found a mind. That he did not protest against the crime,
carried out his instructions in connection with ig and sub-
sequently defended it, is proved. Neither the Duke of
Baden nor the Emperor of Austria dared offer a protest,
and when Alexander of Russia demanded an explanation
Talleyrand politely and pointedly replied that, so far as he
was aware, nobody had been punished for the murder of
the late Czar Paul, but that the French Government had
not felt it their duty to intervene in the matter.

There is a story, repeated by Balzac who was a child at
the time, that on the night of the tragedy Talleyrand was

144

THE CONSULATE

playing hazard at the house of the Duchess of Luynes. In
the early hours of the morning he looked at his watch, and
gravely inquired whether the Duke of Bourbon had any
other son beside the Duke of Enghien. The other guests
replied that, as he was well aware, the Duke was' an only
son. ‘Then,’ observed Talleyrand, ‘the house of Cond^ is
no more.’ Three days later he gave a large ball at the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

Chapter SLt

THE EMPIRE

I

The execution of the Duke of Enghicn was the last scene
in the brilliant drama of the Consular period, which had
started so hppefully, prospered so wonderfully, and was thus
brought to a conclusion in tragedy and crime. Two months
later Napoleon became Emperor of the French Republic,
for with a remarkable lack of French logic the latter name
was for the time retained, and Talleyrand became Grand
Chamberlain of the imperial Court.

So far he had served his master loyally and at the same
time he had served France. The reconciliation of the old
order with the new had been his principal object so far as
the interior was concerned; in foreign affairs he had 'not
only striven consistently for peace, but, well knowing upon
what conditions the hope of permanent peace depehded, he
had endeavoured to moderate Napoleon’s ambitions. He
had sought, in his own words, ‘to establish monarchical in-
stitutions in France which should guarantee the authority
of the sovereign, to keep her within her just boundaries,
and so to handle the Powers of Europe as to make them for-
give France her good fortune and her glory.’ But this task
was gradually rendered impossible by the ever-expanding
ambitions of his master. Talleyrand said with truth that
the most difficult person with whom Napoleon's Foreign
Minister had to negotiate was Napoleon himself. And the.
time was fast approaching when the interests of France and
K 145

THE EMPIRE

146

those of Napoleon not only ceased to ’be identical but
became diametrically opposed.

In vain had Talleyrand used every effort to prevent the
renewal of war with England, in vain did he now attempt to
restrain Napoleon from actions which were bound to
provide England with the allies that she lacked. He had
advocated, as will be remembered, the return of Piedmont to
her legitimate sovereign, instead of which she Had been
incorporated with France. Venice had been sacrificed to
Austria, and the remainder of northern Italy had been
turned into a republic with Napoleon himself as President.
Having transformed the First Consul into an Emperor it
was not his intention to turn the President into a King.
Talleyrand knew that there could be no peace in Europe so
long as the same head wore the crowns of Italy and France.
Despairing of persuading Napoleon to allow anyone save
a relative to. occupy the former throne, Talleyrand pressed
forward the claim first of Joseph and then of Lucien, the
most intelligent of Napoleon’s brothers and the one who
obtained least reward. But Joseph did not want to be king
of Italy and Lucien had married beneath him, so in the
following year the new Emperor of the French placed upon
his own head the iron crown of the Lombard kings. Talley-
rand was present at the ceremony in the cathedral of Milan
and was accompanied throughout the tour by that same
Madame Simons with whom he had dined on the night of
19 Brumaire.

It could not be expected that Europe would calmly
contemplate this continued extension of Napoleon’s power.
Already the Emperor of Russia, who had not forgiven the
execution of the Duke of Enghien, nor forgotten the reply
to his protest, had formed an alliance with England; and
now Austria, who saw French influence reaching to the
borders of Venetia, was added to the coalition. Hopes of

THE EMPIRE

147

peace seemed slight but Talleyrand still struggled for it.
In January of this year he had made overtures to England
but had received the reply that England must first consult
the other continental Powers, especially the Emperor of
Russia. Meanwhile Napoleon was waiting at Boulogne for
the favourable breeze that never blew. To him at the
beginning of September Talleyrand brought the news that
Austria had delivered an ultimatum. The Prussian Minister
in Paris reported to his Government: ‘Monsieur de Talley-
rand is in despair; if he had been able, or if he still were
able either to prevent the outbreak of war or promptly to
arrest its course before victory or defeat had excited am-
bition or compelled honour to go on with it, he would con-
sider such an action the most glorious event in his tenure
of office.’

What Talleyrand dreaded Napoleon welcomed. He was
tired and his army was tired of gazing in Idle impotence at
the white cliffs of England. War with Austria suited his
plans perfectly, so turning his back upon the Channel he
marched resolutely eastward across Europe.

2

When the Commander-In-Chief is also the Emperor and
the Prime Minister he must be accompanied on his cam-
paigns by the greater part of his Cabinet. Talleyrand who
loved idleness and comfort found himself compelled to
trail behind his master in -the wake of the victorious forces.
He hated the life and complained of it bitterly. He was a
cripple, and to some extent an invalid. A young Scots-
man, who was visiting Paris after the Peace of Amiens,
described ‘M. Talleyrand, the Minister of the Interior’ as
resembling ‘nothing so much as a dead man. His feet are
distorted in a shocking manner and I think he deserves well

THE EMPIRE

14.3

of his country for having by unremitting perseverance
learned to walk upon them.’

Writing to a friend from Brunn, where he found himself
compelled to spend sorne weeks, he says: ‘This is a horrible
place— there are four thousand wounded here at present.
There are a great many deaths every day. The smell yester-
day was detestable. To-day it is freezing, which is a good
thing, Please be sure to send m& some very dry Malaga
wine— the least sweet possible.’

Yet it was not the luxury-loving Minister but the iron-
willed soldier whose health gave the greater cause for
alarm during this campaign. On 1st October 1805 an
incident took place at Strassburg which Talleyrand has
recounted in his memoirs as follows: ‘I had dined with the
Emperor and on leaving the table he had gone alone to see
the Empress Josephine. A few minutes later he came
back hurriedly to the salon and taking me by the arm led
me into his room. M. de Rdmusat . . . came in at the same
time. We were hardly there before the Emperor fell to the
ground; he had only time to tell me to shut the door. I tore
off his cravat because he appeared to be stifling; he was not
sick, but -groaned and foamed at the mouth. M. de Rdmusat
gave him water and I poured eau-de-Cologne over him. He
had a kind of convulsions which lasted a quarter of an hour;
we put him in an arm-chair; he began to speak, dressed him-
self again, and swore us to secrecy. Half an hour later he
was on the road to Carlsruhe.’

The campaign was a series of triumphs which began with
the capitulation at Ulm of the Austrian, General Mack, who,
completely out-manoeuvred, surrendered with his entire
army. No sooner did the news reach Talleyrand, who had
remained at Strassburg, than he hastened to draw up a
memorandum on the policy that France should follow as
the result of this important ev6nt. He was quick to ap-

THE EMPIRE

149

predate the danger that the short-sighted and ambitious
soldiers, encouraged by this bloodless victory, would demand
that it should be followed up by a vigorous offensive, which
would either lose what had been gained or else would
reduce Austria to such a plight that she must be compelled
to accept temporarily whatever terms were dictated and to
prepare patiently for revenge.

It is the moment of victory that tests a statesman, and
the situation of Talleyrand at Strassburg after Ulm was
curiously similar to that of bismarck at Nikolsburg after
Sadowa. On each occasion Austria had been defeated, on
each occasion the royal Commander-in-Chief was being
urged on by his own ambition and by the voices of all his
staff and of every soldier in the field to further triumphs, on
each occasion the solitary, mistrusted, voice of the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, who alone could sec in the defeated foe
of to-day the potential ally of to-morrow, was raised in
passionate pleading for moderation, Bismarck succeeded
where Talleyrand failed, but we know from Bismarck’s
own memoirs how near he came to failure and how the
unexpected assistance of his old enemy, the Crown Prince,
who came to his aid at a moment w'hen he was contemplating
suicide, turned the scales in his favour. Talleyrand did not
take life or politics so seriously as Bismarck, but he saw
the future as plainly, and once more he sought to dissuade
Napoleon from the course that led to immediate triumph
and ultimate destruction.

In this important memorandum of 17th October his
main thesis is that Austria must be the future ally of France.
In order that their friendship may be secure it is desirable
that their territories should not be contiguous. Northern
Italy is the danger zone. Let Austria renounce her interest
and 'possessions in that part of Europe, and, in order that
she may casi; no longing, lingering look behind, set up

150 THE EMPIRE

between her and them the ancient republic of Venice,
restored to independence, which will serve as a substantial
barrier. But, because it is impossible to convert a van-
quished and humiliated foe into a firm and faithful ally,
Austria must be compensated in the east for all she forfeits
in the west. Moldavia, Wallachia, Bessarabia, and part of
Bulgaria will increase rather than diminish the power and
prestige of the Habsburg Empire, which in the future will
stand with its back towards Europe and its face to the
East, thus acting as a bulwark to protect western civilisa-
tion from the aggression of Russia. The latter, faced by so
powerful an antagonist on her western frontiers, and know-
ing that behind that antagonist there stands her still more
formidable ally, will also be driven to look eastward for
expansion, where she will find herself hampered by the
oriental possessions and ambitions of Great Britain. So
Russia and Great Britain, the two most dangerous enemies
of France, would be set to grapple with one another in
Asia, and Europe would be left in peace.

Napoleon was impressed by so lucid, far-sighted, and
statesmanlike an exposition of policy, and summoned a
special council at Munich to consider the adoption of
Talleyrand’s memorandum. But events were moving too
quickly and the tide of success was carrying him too rapidly
along. The desire to march a victor into Vienna and to
dictate his orders from the palace of the Habsburgs was too
strong for him, and all counsels of moderation were thrown
to the winds. The capitulation of Ulm was followed by the
victory of Austerlitz, and the Emperor of Russia joined the
Emperor of Austria, both fugitives before the irresistible
armies of France,

Such an astounding and unprecedented series of suc-
cesses was enough to turn the strongest of heads, and all
France participated for a period in the intoxication of her

THE EMPIRE

151

triumphant Emperor. But Talleyrand remain^id a cool
spectator. Three days after Austerlitz he wrote once more
to the Emperor using the same language, pressing the same
policy that he had used and advocated after UJm six weeks
before. ‘The Austrian monarchy is a combination of ill-
assorted states, differing from one another in language,
manners, religion, and constitution, and having only one
thing in common— the identity of their ruler. Such a
power is necessarily weak, liut she is an adequate bulwark
against the barbarians-- and a necessary one. To-day,
crushed and humiliated, she needs that her conqucror'should
extend a generous hand to her and should, by making her
an ally, restore to her that confidence in herself, of which so
many defeats and disasters might deprive her for ever, I
implore Your Majesty to read again the memorandum which
I had the honour to submit to you from Strassburg. To-day
more than ever I dare to consider it as the best and wisest
policy.’

Few men would have had the courage to recommend such
a course at such a moment; none could have persuaded
Napoleon to adopt it. Once again the stern moralist will
have it that Talleyrand should have resigned his office
rather than assist in carrying out a policy of which he did
not approve. But Talleyrand was not guided by stern morals
and had little respect for those who were. He knew what
was politically right and had not hesitated to risk disfavour
by urging it upon the Emperor with all the power at his
command. His advice was disregarded, and with a shrug
he resigned himself to obeying his ’instructions. At the
same time he knew to what disaster those instructions would
ultimately lead, and he had to prepare for his own salvation
as well as for that of his country in the day when what he
foresaw should come to pass.

By the Peace of Pressburg, which Talleyrand negotiated

THE EMPIRE

152

with Austria in accordance with Napoleon’s wishes, the
Emperor Francis lost nearly three million subjects and one-
sixth of his revenue, and agreed to pay an indemnity of
forty million francs. Even so Napoleon was not content and
accused Talleyrand of having concluded a treaty too favour-
able to Austria. From this moment we may take it that
T allcyrand finally abandoned hope of ever inducing Napoleon
to pursue a reasonable policy, conducive to the welfare of
France and the peace of Europe.

Talleyrand’s reward for the services that he had rendered
was the principality of Benevento, a small enclave in the
kingdom of Naples, which had hitherto been a papal state.
He was therefore known as Prince of Benevento during the
remainder of Napoleon’s reign. The revenue which he
drew from this source was inconsiderable in comparison
with the fortune he had already accumulated. He never
visited his new subjects, but by means of a deputy he ruled
them wisely and for their own benefit. He lightened their
burden of taxation and protected them from conscription into
Napoleon’s armies.

3

The year 1 806 which opened with the Peace of Pressburg
and the death of Pitt was crowded with events. In March
Murat was promoted to the Grand Duchy of Berg and
Joseph Bonaparte to the Kingdom of Naples. In June his
brother Louis became King of Holland, and the same
summer witnessed the end of the Holy Roman Empire,
which had lasted for a thousand years. It was ■ partially
replaced by the Confederation of the Rhine. Two new
Idngs were set up in Germany, the Kings of Saxony and
of Wurtemberg, and there were endless rectifications of
frontier and redistributions of territory. Talleyrand played
a leading part in the complicated negotiations which were

THE EMPIRE

H3

rendered necessary, and once more took full advantage of
his public duties to increase his private fortune.

In the Ministry of All the Talents which had succeeded
that of Pitt, the Foreign Office had passed Into the hands
of Fox who, having consistently denounced the war for the
last thirteen years, felt himself called upon to suggest some
method of ending it. The discovery in Plngland of a plot
to assassinate Napoleon provided him with a suitable op-
portunity of manifesting his good intentions and he for-
warded to Talleyrand full details of the cons])iracy.

In the official English note which conveyed this informa-
tion Napoleon was referred to as the ‘chef des Fran^ais,’
a curious designation which was not likely to produce a good
impression on the Emperor. Fox therefore sent at the same
time a private letter to Talleyrand explaining that no
offence was meant by the phrase, which was rendered neces-
sary by the relations then existing between the two Courts,
the British Government not having yet recognised the
new Empire. In the same letter, which was as friendly as it
was informal, he asked to be remembered by Talleyrand
as an individual and sent his regards to Marshal Berthier.

If ever there was a real opportunity for making peace
between England and Napoleon it had now occurred.
Not only were Talleyrand and Fox equally sincere in their
desire for it, but they were two men of outstanding political
ability who were personally acquainted, and who understood
one another.

Among the Englishmen who had been detained in France
as prisoners at the renewal of the war, was Lord Yarmouth,
whose portrait in later age has been drawn for us by the
pen of Thackeray as the Marquess of Steyne and by that of
Disraeli as the Marquess of Monmouth. He was an able
man, more devoted to pleasure than to business, and an
intimate friend of Montrond with whom he had much in

THE EMPIRE

154

common, including, it was alleged, Lady Yarmouth, a
fact which did not interfere with their friendship.

Lord Yarmouth was selected by Talleyrand as a suitable
intermediary between himself and Fox. The British Govern-
ment, however, gave Lord Yarmouth a colleague in the
person of Imrd I.auderdale, whom Talleyrand in his
memoirs blames for the failure of the negotiations. But it
was not, in truth, the fault of I.auderdale or of any sub-
ordinate that the peace which was so eagerly desired by
both nations w'as not concluded. Napoleon had passed the
period when he was prepared to make a reasonable peace
with any country. He was attempting to dictate separate
treaties to Russia and Prussia as well as to England, and he
was seeking to conciliate Prussia with the promise of
Hanover which at the same time he undertook to restore
to England. Yarmouth indeed ‘with all the arrogance of
an English aristocrat,’ says the French historian Sorel,
refused to undertake the negotiation unless all the King’s
German possessions were guaranteed, as he said that he
himself would vote against any cession of them in the House
of Lords. When Talleyrand satisfied him on this point he
asked about Sicily where the Bourbon King, who had been
driven from Naples, still ruled under the protection of the
British fleet. ‘You have got it and we shan’t ask you for it,'
was Talleyrand’s reply which encouraged Yarmouth to pro-
ceed with the mission but which did not in fact represent
the intention of Napoleon.

Yarmouth soon showed that he was not so easy to deal
with as Talleyrand had hoped. He was a hard drinker, a
high gambler, devoted to women, and with no previous
experience of diplomacy save such as may be acquired in
the pursuit of the wives and mistresses of others, but, to
quote Sorel again, he soon began to give evidence of those
qualities of a 'sly and obstinate bulldog which are revealed

THE EMPIRE

155

in all Englishmen as soon as the interests of England are at
stake.’ Montrond was set to spy upon him, but, unfor-
tunately for Montrond, Yarmouth had the stronger head of
the two and would drink the Frenchman under the table,
acquiring the while a great deal more information than he
gave.

Fox soon learnt, what many leaders of opposition have
learnt since, that it is easier to criticise the actions of Min-
isters than to improve upon them. He began also to under-
stand that Napoleon was not the lover of peace and liberty
that some of the Whigs had believed him to be. Fox him-
self was prepared as a last resource to give way on the
question of Sicily. ‘It is not Sicily,’ he exclaimed in despair,
‘but the shuffling, insincere way in whic^ they act that
shows me they are playing a false game.’ In September of
the same year Fox died, and with him perished the last
hope of peace between England and Napoleon.

4

Meanwhile the weak and vacillating diplomacy of Prussia
was preparing the way for her downfall. Yarmouth did not
omit to inform the Prussian representative that Napoleon
had been willing to hand over Hanover to England; and the
execution of Palm, a harmless bookseller, for the crime of
having sold a pamphlet deploring the condition of Germany,
had inflamed public opinion against France. Napoleon
demanded nothing better. In vain Talleyrand once more
attempted to prevent the war which was declared in Sep-
tember, and in the following month he found himself on
the road again, behind the army that was marching on
Berlin.

We possess a picture of him as he appeared during this
autumn to the Queen Hoitcnse. In the memoirs that she

THE EMPIRE

156

wrote many years afterwards she says: ‘It was during this
journey that I came to know Monsieur de Talleyrand
better. I had often wondered how people could judge of
his intelligence and say he was so witty when he offered so
little proof of it. I had seen him for years limping into the
salon at Malmaison, with his cold and nonchalant air,
leaning on the nearest chair and hardly bowing. He had
seldom spoken to me. At Mainz on the other hand he sought
me out and was polite. I was surprised and even flattered,
for the attentions of a man who pays so few have always
more effect, and I am sure that his great reputation for
cleverness is due more to his saying so little and saying it so
well than to anything remarkable that he does. . . . The
charm of his wijt makes up for his lack of strength of soul
and character. . . . His great attraction is largely due to
the vanity of others. I was caught by it myself. The day
that he deigns to speak to you he seems charming, and
if he inquires after your health you are prepared to love
him.’

Hortense had certainly littler reason to be fond of Talley-
rand for he was no friend to her family, and she records that
an old negress who in the West Indies years before had
prophesied her mother’s wonderful fortune had particularly
warned her against a priest. The fact that he was the father
of the Count de Flahaut, the one man whom Hortense
did love, does not appear to have prejudiced her in his
favour.

While Talleyrand and Hortense were making friends at
Maiuz the military power of Prussia, about which there
had hung for nearly half a century the prestige conferred
upon it by Frederick the Great, was being crushed to Atoms
on. the fields of Jena and Auerstadt. Presently Talleyrand
had to join his master In Berlin. His arrival there, such was
his reputation, wa^ awaited with a last glimmering of hope

THE EMPIRE

157

by the statesmen of the defeated nation. Haugwitz wrote
to the former Prussian representative in Paris: ‘Provided
that Monsieur de Talleyrand arrives, I do not despair of
your being able to arouse some sounder political ideas than
this terrible principle of the destruction of Prussia as a
guarantee for the future peace of France. That enlightened
Minister will easily understand that when Prussia is ren-
dered powerless to restrain Russia or to threaten Austria . . .
those two Pow’crs will be in a stronger position to disturb
the peace of France.’

Talleyrand arrived in Berlin at the end of October, but
he could no longer exercise the slightest influence over
Napoleon. The events which he was now compelled to
witness, and even to assist in as an unwilling agent,
finally convinced him that the time had come for him to
quit the office of Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the first
place Napoleon’s treatment of Prussia was as impolitic as it
was merciless. His fatal error, both as statesman and as
diplomatist, was that he never determined upon his ultimate
objective before entering upon a war, but allowed his pro-
jected terms of peace to vary with every change in the
fortunes of the campaign. In November the King accepted
the proposals which had been made to him at the end of
October, but as matters had gone worse for Prussia during
the interval Napoleon increased his demands. Finally
Frederick William was compelled to submit to the loss of
half his territory and the reduction of his population to a
little over five million. The beautiful and spirited Queen
Louisa was persuaded to follow Napoleon to Tilsit in order
to endeavour by charm and pathos to soften the heart of the
conqueror and obtain more favoiirable conditions for her
unfortunate country.

Her efforts were in vain, but while they lastec^ she was
able to perceive ^Vho was her only friend among those who

THE EMPIRE

158

surrounded the Emperor, and to express hei- gratitude.
Talleyrand thus recounts the incident;

‘I was indignant at all that I saw and heard, but I was
obliged to hide my indignation. Therefore I shall all my
life be grateful to the Queen of Prussia— a Queen of another
age— for having appreciated it. If when I look back upon
my life much that I find there is necessarily painful, I can
at least remember as a great consolation what she was then
good enough to say and almost to confide to me. “Monsieur
the Prince of Benevento,” she said, the last time that I had
the honour to conduct her to her carriage, “there are only
two people here who are sorry that I came— you and I.
You are not angry, are you, that I should go away with
this belief?” Tears of emotion and pride that came into
my eyes were my answer.’

Talleyrand knew, what Napoleon persisted in ignoring,
that a nation crushed and humiliated as Prussia had been,
could never form a reliable pillar in the framework of a
reconstructed Europe. She might be compelled, as she was
by the terms dictated to her, to declare war upon England,
but the sympathies of her whole population must in future
remain with the enemies of France, and as soon as the
opportunity arose those sympathies would be translated into
action.

Fortified by the support of such doubtful allies Napoleon
proceeded to intensify the bitterness of the war with Eng-
land. From Berlin he launched the decrees which declared
the British Isles to be in a state of blockade, and prohibited
all commerce or correspondence with them. Talleyrand
was compelled in his official position to sign the document
that explained and defended this policy, 'but he could not
approve of it. ^

Finally, it was at Berlin that Napoleon confided to Talley-
rand his determination to destroy the Bourbon dynasty in

THE EMPIRE

159

Spain. ‘I then swore to myself,’ writes Talleyrand in his
memoirs, ‘that I would cease to be his Minister as soon as
we returned to France,’

5 *

Many months, however, still separated Talleyrand from
his home in the Rue d’Anjou. From Berlin he was obliged
to travel in great discomfort over broken roads to Warsaw,
where Napoleon was spending the early days of the year
1807. Here Talleyrand’s time was divided between tender-
ing his master such tactful assistance as he required in the
early stages of his liaison with the Countess Walewska, and
submitting to him memoranda dealing with the thorny
question of the future of Poland.

As a young man, Talleyrand had deplored the series of
treaties which had brought about the partitioning of that
country amongst the greater Powers. He now welcomed the
opportunity that seemed to present itself of reversing that
policy. He believed that a strong and independent Poland
would contribute towards the stability of peace in Europe,
his one and constant aim. He often said to Madame de
R^musat that the solution of the problem lay in Poland. As
Austria should form the southern, so, in his opinion, should
Poland form the northern barrier against Russian aggression.

If Napoleon had been willing to listen to his advice with
regard to this question he would have had reason to be
grateful to him in the days to come. As it was Napoleon,
who never had in his mind any picture of Europe save as
of one vast estate with himself as master and the various
territories farmed out to his subordinate allies and relatives,
had from first to last no Polish policy at all. The Poles were
prepared to welcome him as a liberator and because he
liked to be welcomed and had grown up in the period when
it was fashionable to speak loudly about liberty, he gave

THE EMPIRE

t6o

them considerable if vague encouragement. The Emperor
of Russia, whose intimate friend in youth had been Adam
Czartor)"ski, a Polish prince, had also once dreamt of
restoring the independence of Poland. That dream was
already growing dim, but he was determined that if he
could not restore Polish independence himself nobody else
should be allowed to do so.

Napoleon played with the idea now, and continued to
play with it until the end. Had he abandoned it completely
he might have secured the permanent friendship of Alex-
ander; if he had adhered to it firmly and insisted upon the
creation of a free Polish state under an independent monarch
he would have forfeited the' possibility of an alliance with
Russia, but he would have secured as an ally not a prince
but a whole people, whose support wpuld have proved as
valuable as the enmity of the people of Spain was to prove
disastrous.

This latter was the policy which Talleyrand urged now and
again at Vienna in 1 8 1 f and once more from London in 1830.
It was the policy which Europe eventually was forced to work
out for herself after many wars and more than a century of
travail. It was characteristic of Talleyrand that he saw no
harm in accepting large sums of money from the Polish
nobility for advocating this policy in which he believed, and
it is equally characteristic and more important to remember
that having failed to secure the adoption of the policy he felt
obliged to return to those who had pa^d it him the money
that he had received.

By the agreements concluded between Napoleon and
Alexander at Tilsit, on a raft on the River Niemen, some of
the Polish provinces were formed into the Grand Duchy of
Warsaw under the sovereignty of the King of Saxony. But
fat more important were the arrangements entered into for
the furtherance of the continental war against England.

THE EMPIRE

i6i

The terms of the treaty were conveyed with singular
rapidity to the British Foreign Office and Canning, realising
the danger that faced Great Britain with nearly the whole
continent of Europe allied against her, and the possibility
of the fleets of the northern nations falling into the hands of
France, took the high-handed measure of sending a squadron
into the Baltic which bombarded Copenhagen and captured
the whole of the Danish fleet.

There has been much speculation as to the source from
which this valuable information reached the British
Government and it has been alleged that Talleyrand was
the traitor. The theory rests upon one statement con-
tained in some doubtful memoirs attributed to Fouche, and
the fact that when this statement was brought to the notice
of Canning he is reported to have smiled and said nothing,

Talleyrand had nothing to gain from so gross an act of
treachery commensurate with the danger involved in sending
the information. Any message sent by him from Russia
ran the risk of discovery en route and it was not his manner
to adopt such crude and uncompromising tactics. The
solution of the mystery appears to have peiyshed with
Canning, but the most probable explanation is that some
member of the Emperor Alexander’s staff was responsible,
for both at this time and throughout the Franco-Russian
alliance a considerable majority of the Russian aristocracy
were strongly pro-English.

It is one of the gravest defects of autocracy as a system
of government that it allows no room for legitimate op-
position. The individual who sincerely believes that his
country is suffering, and will continue to suffer as the result
of bad policy, has to choose between becoming either a
passive spei-tator of his country’s ruin or taking steps to
prevent it which his enemies will denounce as disloyalty.
When open opposition is rebellion, secret opposition becomes

i 62

THE EMPIRE

treason; yet there are circumstances in which such treason
may become the duty of a patriot.

From the year 1807 Talleyrand did all in his power to
thwart Napoleon’s ambitions and to hasten his downfall.
It is the turning-point in the history of the Empire. He was
convinced that for the good of France and for the good of
Europe the power of Napoleon had to be destroyed. There-
fore he is not to be blamed because he sought to attain that
end, but because, while so seeking, he continued to receive
benefits from the man whom he was scheming to destroy.
The only grounds upon which such conduct can be defended
are, in the first place, that if he haJ shown less duplicity
he would have destroyed his own position and lost the
power to achieve his purpose; and secondly, that he did,
in fact, show' so little duplicity that his hostile manoeuvres
became common knowledge in which the Emperor himself
shared.

6

At the beginning of the year 1808 Napoleon had reached
the summit of his triumphant career. The continent of
Europe lay at his feet, the Emperors of Austria and Russia
were his humble allies, three of his brothers sat upon
thrones and it seemed that no limit was set to his power
of achievement, save only the continued resistance of
England. Yet already he had determined upon and had
taken the first step towards that policy which was to prove
his undoing.

On the return from Tilsit Talleyrand was relieved of the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs and promoted to the office of
Vice-Grand Elector. He asserts that this change was in
accordance with his own ^msheSf and Napoleon’s statement
at St. Helena to the effect that he was dismissed as the result
of complaints concerning his rapacious demands on the

THE EMPIRE

163

Kings of Bavaria and Wurtemberg need hardJy be taken
seriously, for his new position was both superior and better
paid than his old one and carried with it equal opportunities
of increasing his income by doubtful methods. He continued
to play an important part in the direction of foreign affairs,
but was relieved of the routine of office. His position was
the third highest in the land. Outside the royal family
only the Arch Chancellor, who was Cambaceriis, the former
Second Consul, and the Arch Treasurer, who was Lebrun,
the former Third Consul, took precedence of him. It
would therefore be absurd to suppose that he had been
elevated to so lofty a position as a reproof for rapacity.

It may, however, be true, as some people at the time
believed, that Napoleon was displeased at the great import-
ance which he found was attached to Talleyrand’s opinion
and advice in all the capitals of Europe that he had recently
visited. As he grew more self-confident and more autocratic
he resented the presence of a Minister with views of his
own, and hated it to be thought that he was dependent on
the assistance of any individual. The new arrangement
perfectly suited Napoleon, whereby he secured a docile
Minister— Champagny was the man selected— while the
services of Talleyrand remained available when required.
It also suited Talleyrand to be more highly rewarded for
less work, and he hoped that Champagny, with whom h’e
was on the best of terms, would become as faithful an
instrument of his own as Reinhard had proved in the last
days of the Directory. Here he was mistaken, for Cham-
pagny became a faithful and docile servant of Napoleon.

7

In October 1807 there was concluded at Fontainebleau
a secret convention between France and Spain, the ostens-

THE EMPIRE

164

ible object of which was the partition of Portugal. The
excuse for it was the refusal of the Portuguese Government
to enforce the blockade of Great Britain, but Napoleon’s
real intention was to secure the peaceful occupation of Spain
by French troops with a view to establishing French domina-
tion over the whole peninsula. In this way the French army
was enabled to enter Spain and to march from Bayonne to
Lisbon without encountering any opposition save what was
offered by the climate and the natural conditions of the
country which, indeed, proved formidable enough. At
their approach the Regent of Portugal sailed with his
Government and his fleet to Brazil, much to the annoyance
of Napoleon. The troops, together with considerable rein-
forcements, proceeded peacefully to take possession of the
most important strategic positions in Spain.

Gradually that futile couple. King Charles iv of Spain and
Queen Maria Luisa— whose futility still postures before us
in the canvasses of Goya — realised that their country was
in the hands of thfeir treacherous ally and turned to Godoy,
the man whom they both loved and who was the principal
cause of their misfortunes, for advice. He suggested that
they should follow the example of their neighbour of
Portugal and fly the country. On the way to the coast they
were met by a revolution. The infuriated populace, believ-
ing that their country had been sold by Godoy, demanded
his head and were only appeased by the abdication of the
King in favour of his son, Ferdinand, and by the promise
that the favourite should be brought to trial.

The King revoked his abdication as soon as he thought
that it was safe to do so, and thus created a confused situa-
tion which admirably suited Napoleon’s plans. He an-
nounced his intention of visiting Madrid and promised
Ferdinand the hand of some Bonaparte princess. Mean-
while he continued to negotiate with the King and Queen

THE EMPIRE

165

and arranged for them, together with Godoy, to meet him
at Bayonne, with a view to settlin'g all their differences. To
persuade Ferdinand also to cross the frontier proved only
slightly more difficult, although the Spanish people, more
perspicacious than their Prince, sought in vain to detain
him and actually removed the horses from his carriage.

On his arrival at Bayonne Ferdinand was informed that
he must immediately abdicate, and when he refused to do
so he was threatened with a trial for high treason. He
agreed, in terror, to sign a document restoring the throne
to his father and subsequently learnt that his father had
already made over all his rights to Napoleon. Tlie miserable
old couple were allowed to depart first to Compiegne and
then to Italy, where they spent the remainder of their days
in universal contempt, but Ferdinand, together with his
younger brother and his uncle, w'as sent to gilded captivity
at Talleyrand’s chateau of Valenfay.

Such is briefly the story of Napoleon’s conduct towards
the ruling House of Spain, which led him into the Peninsular
War. It seemed at first sight the least serious military opera-
tion that he had undertaken, but it was to prove the most dis-
astrous. He thought that he could win a kingdom by tricking
a king, and he did not realise that he had to fight against an
united nation.

8

Talleyrand always asserted that he had been strongly
opposed to the Spanish policy from the beginning, and that
Napoleon acted throughout either without consulting him
or refusing to take his advice when given. Napoleon, on the
other hand, frequently stated that Talleyrand supported the
policy when it was first adopted, and only denounced it
later when the difficulties became apparent.

THE EMPIRE

1 66

As is often the case when (he choice lies betw'ecn two
directly contradictory statements the whole truth will pro-
bably be found to rest with neither, but to consist of a
judicious combination of both.

In support of Talleyrand’s assertion it may be argued in
the first place that the Treaty of Fontainebleau did not
bear his signature. Yet he was present with the Court at
Fontainebleau when it was negotiated and signed, and his
official position gave him the privilege of affixing his
signature to treaties. If it were true, as Napoleon told
Caulaincourt five years later, that Talleyrand actually
negotiated this treaty, he would naturally have signed it,
for what object could there be in obtaining the signature of
a third party to an extremely secret document and omitting
that of the person who was better acquainted with its contents ?

Further, it is an established fact that Talleyrand had
consistently opposed the policy of tire firm hand in Portugal,
which had led to the proposed partition. He realised that it
must mean ruin for Portugal to enforce the blockade against
England, and he had done his utmost to save Portugal
from the consequences of the Emperor’s wrath at her
failure to do so. Izquierdo, the agent of Godoy, who had
been plotting in France for the last year and to whose
efforts the Treaty of Fontainebleau was mainly due, had
never been on good terms with Talleyrand. Duroc was his
friend and it was with him that he negotiated. Lima, on
the other hand, the representative of Portugal, relied
entirely on Talleyrand’s support, and regarded his with-
drawal from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs as a national
disaster for Portugal. When congratulating Champagny,
the new Minister, he said frankly: ‘I should betray my
conscience and my duty if I told Your Excellency that the
retirement of H.S.H. the Prince of Benevento left me
without regret.’

THE EMPIRE

167

At the time of the Treaty of Fontainebleau, for which
Talleyrand must be held auildc;s, Napoleon could not have
foreseen the course of events that was to bring him to
Bayonne. It was never his way to look far ahead but rather
to turn every circumstance to his advantage and to allow
nothing but the adversity of fortune to limit the scope of
his ambition. That I'alleyrand should have advocated the
policy of setting up a Bonapartist monarchy in Spain is
almost unthinkable. It was in direct contradiction to all
the advice that he had given Napoleon from the earliest
days. He had always been in favour of limiting rather than
extending France’s liabilities. Why should he who had
urged moderation after Ulm, after Austerlitx, and after
Jena suddenly have become the supporter of the wildest
and the nvost fatal of all Napoleon’s schemes of expansion ?

The theory that he did support this policy depends upon
the testimony of Pasquier, M^neval, and Chateaubriand,
who were all his enemies, and whose evidence is not sup-
ported by a single document. Chateaubriand says that
Talleyrand destroyed the relevant papers in 1814, but it
seems hardly probable that he would have had the effrontery
to denounce, as he did denounce, the whole Spanish policy a
few months after its adoption if at the time the documentary
proof existed that he himself had been, the instigator.

The facts afford a stronger argument still for lending
credence to his oft reiterated statement that he was not
responsible. If he had really been behind the policy it is at
least surprising that he should not have accompanied
Napoleon to Bayonne. Here were negotiations of extreme
delicacy to be conducted; here it was necessary to induce
a king and his eldest son to sign away their claims on the
kingdom which they had inherited, and of which the
inhabitants were devotedly loyal to their family. In return
for this sacrifice they were to receive nothing but exile and

i68 • THE EMPIRE

captivity, although they had been the most faithful of
Napoleon’s allies, and their subjects had fought for him by
land and sea. Here indeed was a task that should test the
skill of the ablest diplomatist of the age. If that very
diplomatist was also the moving spirit in the policy which
M^as here being brought to its culmination surely his would
have been the hand employed to complete the work it had
begun

He admits that he was consulted on the plan, but insists
that he strongly opposed it, and the memoirs of Madame
de Remusat who saw him continually during that winter
at Fontainebleau entirely bear out the truth of his statement.
Those, on the other hand, who refuse to accept it, can point
to a letter which he addressed to Napoleon afterwards
warmly congratulating him upon the success of the action
that was taken ht Bayonne. Here, however, it should be
remembered that in the days of an autocracy every states-
man must be a courtier too, just as under a democracy
every statesman must be something of a demagogue. The
letter which the Vice-Grand Elector addressed to the
Emperor upon this occasion was the letter of a courtier and
it is perfectly legitimate for the courtier to offer his con-
gratulations upon the apparent success of a measure which
he had strongly deprecated as a statesman.

Again, if Talleyrand had been at Napoleon’s elbow
throughout the transaction the latter would hardly have
rewarded him when it was so satisfactorily concluded by
imposing on him the duty of acting as gaoler to the Spanish
Princes, The office is never a grateful one, and there can
be little doubt that Napoleon, as was generally believed at
the time, selected Valencay as their prison in order that
Talleyrand naight be fully inculpated in the violence that
was being offered to them.

For six years the Princes remained there, living in the

THE EMPIRE

i6g

greatest luxury, no expense nor effort being spared to
render their captivity as pleasant as possible. Hunting and
the offices of religion filled their days, music and dancing
occupied their evenings. Nor were the allurements of
flirtation absent. The Duke of San Carlos, one of their
principal attendants, fell a victim to the full blown and
ample charms of Madame de Taileyran<l, and was perhaps
the last successor of the long-forgotten Mr. Grand of
Tranquebar.

Napoleon, having learnt of the liaison and wishing to
wound Talleyrand, said one day to him l)rut.illy before a
crowd of cout tiers: ‘Why didn’t you tell me that the Duke
of San Carlos was your wife’s lover .^’ Talleyrand replied
coolly that he had thought the less said about that matter
the better for the Emperor’s honour as well as for his own.

Talleyrand admits in his memoirs that he suggested to
Napoleon, as an alternative to the Bayonne policy, the
occupation by French troops of Catalonia during the
remainder of the war with England, The suggestion was in
reply to Napoleon’s argument that his Pyrenean frontier
was in danger, and that at any moment when he was at war
on the Rhine or in Italy he was open to a dangerous attack
by Spain in the rear.

To some people the forcible seizure of a Spanish province
will seem little better from the moral point of view than the
forcible seizure of the Spanish Princes, But Talleyrand
was a man of the world, and he knew which crimes the
world will condone and which it can never forgive. I f e told
Napoleon that he had lost more than he had gained by this
policy, and when he was bidden to explain himself he did
so by an analogy:

‘If a gentleman commits follies,’ he said, ‘if he keeps
mistresses, if he treats his wife badly, even if he is guilty of
serious injustices towards his friends, he will be blamed, no

THE EMPIRE

170

doubt, but if he Is rich, powerful, and intelligent, society
will still treat- him with indulgence. But if that man cheats
at cards he will be immediately banished from decent
society and never forgiven.’

So began the rupture between Talleyrand and Napoleon
that was never healed. Napoleon was incapable of ap-
preciating the difference between the coup d’dtat of Brum-
aire and the coup d’etat of Bayonne, and could not forgive
Talleyrand who had assisted him in the one for deserting
him in the other. Talleyrand, on the other hand, was aware
that while it might prove possible to prop up the facade of
the Empire for several years, the fate of the Emperor was
sealed. At Bayonne Napoleon had committed the unforgiv-
able crime. He had cheated at cards.

Chapter Seven

TREASON

1

Erfurt! Never has any name produced such an impression
on me as that of this outlandish place. I cannot think of it
without fear and hope: the fate of Europe and the world,
the future of political power and perhaps of European
civilisation depends on it.' So Talleyrand wrote on the eve
of the second meeting between Napoleon and Alexander.

At Tilsit much had been left unsettled. It had been
understood that the two Emperors should meet again, and
during the fourteen months that had elapsed negotiations
had been proceeding with regard to the time and place of
their meeting. The scene at Tilsit had been dramatic. The
sudden alteration from bitter enmity to warm friendship,
the raft on the river, the weeping Queen of Prussia, the two
young Emperors deciding the fate of the world. Erfurt in
comparison was a cold-blooded business. Both Emperors
had had time to reflect and to recover from the powerful
fascination which at their first meeting they had exercised
over one another.

The event of the year had been Napoleon’s intervention
in Spain which had had for him the doubly disastrous effect
of proving to Europe that while his ambition was insatiable
his power was not invincible. It united kings and peoples
against him. No dynasty could feel secure after the manner
in which the Spanish Bourbons had been treated; no nation
could despair of liberty when they saw how the Spanish

171

TREASON

172

people were refusing to accept an alien domination. The
Russians seriously feared that Napoleon meant to treat
Alexander at Erfurt as he had treated the Bourbons at
Bayonne, and the Dowager Empress besought her son with
tears not to walk into the trap. •

Although Talleyrand was no longer Minister for Foreign
Affairs, Napoleon decided that his assistance would be use-
ful at Erfurt. He foresaw the diplomatic difhculties that
would arise and realised the necessity of having somebody
at hand who would be capable of negotiating with the Czar.
Before Talleyrand set out he was shown, by Napoleon’s
instructions, all J,he despatches which had passed between
Paris and the French Ambassador at St. Petersburg, in
order that he might be thoroughly acquainted with the
situation.

Napoleon’s main object, now as ever, was die destruction
of Great Britain. To accomplish this purpose he had first
to make the blockade a reality, which could only be done
when Spain and Portugal had been reduced to submission.
But Napoleon feared that while he was thus engaged in the
Peninsula Austria might seize the opportunity to recover
her losses. Too late the wisdom of the advice given by
Talleyrand after Ulm and after Austerlitz was apparent.
Instead of a contented country, anxious to keep the peace
and concerned with the safety of her eastern frontier,
Napoleon had created an enemy, who had suffered too much
ever to forgive, and who, he knew, was only awaiting the
moment when he should find himself in difficulties in order
to sweep to her revenge.

For this reason he was anxious to obtain from Alexander
at Erfurt an assurance that if Austria decided to give trouble,
he could rely upon the armed force of Russia to come to his
assistance. Talleyrand was determined that that assurance
should never be given. He was a European as 'well as a

TALLEYRAND
from a ponrair by tierard

TREASON

173

Frenchman and he was convinced that it was no more for
the good of France than it was for the good of Europe that
the whole continent should be subjected to the will of a
single individual even though that individual might be the
Emperor of the French. Born in the middle of the eigh-
teenth century he was free from that narrow nationalist
spirit which was beginning to grow up, and the idea of
conquest made no appeal to his practical, peace-loving
intelligence. He was intimately acquainted with the map of
Europe which he wished to preserve and not to destroy.
Of that map the Austrian Empire formed an integral part.
Its destruction would mean the substitution of chaos for
order.

Further, he had as little desire to destroy England as to
destroy Austria. His well-balanced brain, fortified by thirty
years of political experience, appreciated the fact that just
as the conservative influence of Austria was essential to the
maintenance of the structure of Europe, so the liberalising,
anti-autocratic spirit of England was necessary in order to
maintain the mental equilibrium of the Continent, and
prevent the violence of reaction, provoked by the violence
of revolution, from going too far in the opposite direction.
‘Get this into your head,’ he once exclaimed to Madame de
R^musat, ‘if the English Constitution is destroyed, the
civilisation of the world will be shaken to its foundations.’

Doubtful as he already was of Talleyrand’s loyalty it is
the more surprising that Napoleon should have employed
him at so critical a juncture. So much had success affected
his brain that he no longer believed that any individual was
capable of harming him. It was about this time that he said
scornfully: ‘I don’t employ the Prince of Benevento when I
want a thing done, but only when I want to have the appear-
ance of wanting to do it,’ He was to learn that even he could
not make a compliant tool of Talleyrand. Metternich, who

TREASON

174

was now Austrian Ambassador in Paris, knew better. ‘Men
like M. de Talleyrand,’ he wrote to his Government, ‘are
like sharp-edged instruments with which it is dangerous to
play; but for great evils great remedies are necessary, and he
who has to treat them ought not to be afraid to use the
instrument that cuts the best.’

Napoleon was not so wise. Talleyrand, he thought, was
just the man he needed at the moment. He wanted to impress
the Germans by the splendour of his Court; he wanted as
many kings and princes as possible to be standing round the
steps of his throne. When it was suggested that Eugene de
Beauharnais, who was now the son-in-law of the King of
Bavaria, should be entrusted with the task of collecting the
ruling princes of Germany, he said: ‘No, Eugene isn’t
clever enough. He can do exactly as I tell him but he is
useless at insinuating. Talleyrand would do it better. What’s
more,’ he added, laughing, ‘he’ll tell them, as a sneer at me,
how much they will please me by coming, and then it will
be for me to show them that I didn’t care the least whether
they came or not, and that their coming has been rather a
nuisance than otherwise.’

He proceeded to give Talleyrand his instructions,
which were, briefly, to conclude a treaty that would give
him a free hand to deal with Spain in the knowledge
that Russia would prevent any possible action on the part
of Austria. Otherwise he was to be committed to nothing.
There might be vague talk and vague promises about the
partition of Turkey, and Russia might be humoured in her
immediate desire to acquire the provinces of Wallachia and
Moldavia (the modern Roumania) and to have her acquisi-
tion recognised, but the main sense of the treaty should be
to unite Ae allies in their hostility to England.

Talleyrand prepared a draft treaty on the lines indicated
but studiously omitted all reference to Austria. ‘But how

TREASON

175

can you have forgotten that?’ exclaimed Napoleon, after
reading it. ‘That is the essential article. Are you still pro-
Austrian.?’ ‘A little, Sire,’ replied Talleyrand, ‘but I think
it would be more correct to say that I am never pro-Russian
and always pro-French.’

In this humour and with the deliberate intention of thwart-
ing the will of his master, Talleyrand set forth for Erfurt.

2

If a Court painter had been commissioned to produce a
picture portraying the apotheosis of Napoleon’s power he
would probably have selected Erfurt as the background.
Never before had so many ruling princes been gathered
together in one town in order to do homage to one man. All
the arrangements which had been carefully planned before-
hand to enhance Napoleon’s prestige worked admirably.
The princes vied to surpass one another in adulation of their
master and Talleyrand said of them afterwards that he had
not seen at Erfurt a single hand that dared courageously
to stroke the lion’s mane.

Alexander arrived on 28th September. Napoleon went
out to meet him on the road and then returned to his own
apartments to await the Czar’s ceremonious visit. Talley-
rand was present at the interview, and afterwards accom-
panied the Czar to his carriage. Several times as they
descended the staircase Alexander said to him: ‘We will
meet again,’ and when later in the evening he returned to
his own lodgings he found awaiting him a note from the
Princess of Tour and Taxis informing him of her arrival.
He called on her immediately and had not been in her room
for a quarter of an hour before the Emperor of Russia was
announced. The evening was a success. The Emperor,
charming and informal, asked for a cup of teft, and before

TREASON

176

they separated suggested that the Princess should entertain
them -every evening in the same manner after the duties and
the pleasures of the conference were over. It would give
them, he said, an opportunity of talking comfortably and
would make a good end to the day. Thus the drawing-room
of the Princess of Tour and Taxis, who was a sister of the
Queen of Prussia, became the regular rendezvous of a little
group of people who, meeting there of an evening, regaled
one another with conversation, with anecdotes and wit-
ticisms usually of an anti-French complexion, while the
Emperor of Russia either made love to the Princess
Stephanie of Baden, a relative of Josephine, or else conferred
%vith Talleyrand as to the best means by which he could
defeat the aims of Napoleon.

At one of the earliest of these interviews Talleyrand used
these words ; ‘Sire, it is in your power to save Europe, and
you will only do so by refusing to give way to Napoleon.
The French people are civilised, their sovereign is not.
The sovereign of Russia is civilised and his people are not:
the sovereign of Russia should therefore be. the ally of the
French people.’ He went on to explain and develop this
statement. He insisted that the French people had one
dominant desire— to have done with war and to be allowed
to enjoy the fruits of conquest. Unless the Czar, for there
was nobody else in a position' to do so, constituted himself
the mediator between Napoleon and his people, they would
continue to be dragged as victims in the wake of his trium-
phal chariot to their ultimate destruction. Very skilfully,
with consummate art and with the greatest care he contrived
that the same views should reach Alexander’s ears from
many different sources until eventually the Czar was con-
vinced that they represented the opinion of ‘all sensible
people in France,’

An element of humour is lent to the situation' by the

TREASON

.'77

fact that, while Talleyrand was so successfully deceiving
Napoleon, Napoleon was less successfully attempting to
deceive him. Believing that his best chance of persuading
Alexander to do what he wished lay in dealing with him
direct and avoiding interference by either Russian or
French advisers, Napoleon drafted with his own hand a
treaty which from his own point of view was an improve-
ment on that submitted to him by Talleyrand, and in
handing it to Alexander impressed upon him the importance
of keeping its terms secret and of not communicating them
even to the Russian Minister for foreign Affairs. A few
hours later, in the Princess’s drawing-room, which had been
closed to all other visitors that evening, Alexander produced
from his pocket the draft treaty and handed it to Talleyrand,
who thus obtained from his master’s rival the very informa-
tion that that master had so carefully attempted to conceal
from him. If he had ever had any qualms about the deceit
that he was practising they must have been considerably
modified by this revelation of the deceit that was being
practised against him. A master who will not trust his own
servants is the more likely to be deceived by them.

Henceforward it became the custom for Alexander to
Inform Talleyrand every evening of the course which
negotiations had followed during the day. The proposals
which Napoleon had put forward, the arguments with which
Alexander had met them were all duly recounted and Talley-,
rand would then proceed to give his advice and furnish
Alexander with fresh arguments for the morrow. The
Emperor of Russia would occasionally strengthen his
memory by making notes of the suggestions put forward,
and came near to taking down his instructions at the dicta-
tion of the French diplomatist.

This was treachery, but it was treachery upon a magnificent
scale. Of the two Emperors, upon whose words the fate

TREASON

178

of Europe depended) Talleyrand had made one his dupe
and the other his informant. He was playing a great game
for a vast stake, and although he never lost sight of his
private interests his main objective was neither personal nor
petty. Had he thought only of his own welfare he would
have acted differently, for he was putting all in jeopardy,
his position, his wealth, perhaps his life by opposing the
will of one who had hitherto destroyed all opposition raised
against him. But Talleyrand did care for the preservation
of Europe, was quite clear in his own mind as to how that
object was to be achieved, and in order to achieve it he risked
everything. As it proved he had six years to wait for his
reward and he was no longer young. If we compare his
conduct towards Napoleon with that of the majority of his
supporters, including the Marshals, who all deserted him
when it was manifest to the world that he. was a broken
man, and who for the most part owed everything to him,
we shall find it less easy to condemn the politician who
turned against him at the height of his power because he
could no longer approve of his policy.

Not only did Talleyrand himself feel no shame but he
was actually proud of the part he played on this occasion.
He describes it at length in his memoirs and used to boast
of it in after life. ‘It was the last service that I was able to
render to Europe so long as Napoleon continued to reign,
and a service which, in my opinion, I rendered to him as
well.'

The latter part of this statement he would probably have
justified by arguing that if Napoleon had taken to heart
the lesson of Erfurt he would have appreciated the need for
moderating his policy. He had failed to obtain from Alex-
ander the support that he sought against Austria and that he
knew was necessary for the safe prosecution of his designs on
Spain. Having failed he should have altered his policy,

TREASON

179

instead of which he continued to act exactly as if he had
succeeded.

Shortly before leaving Erfurt Napoleon opened his mind
to Talleyrand upon a subject that had long been occupying
it. It was late at night and Napoleon had already retired but
seemed unwilling to allow Talleyrand to leave him. ‘His
agitation was remarkable; he asked me questions without
waiting for the answer; he was trying to tell me something;
he said what he didn’t mean; at last he got out the great
word— divorce.’ He then explained the necessity he felt
under of getting an heir and mentioned that Alexander had
a sister of a suitable age. Talleyrand promised to speak to
Alexander on the subject and despite the lateness of the
hour he went straight off to the usual rendezvous at the
house of the Princess where he found the Emperor, who had
stayed that night later than usual. He arranged an audience
for the following morning, and learnt at the same time to
his great satisfaction that Alexander was going that same
morning to write a reassuring letter to the Emperor of
Austria.

Talleyrand did not like the idea of the Russian marriage.
True to his Austrian proclivities he preferred a Habsburg
bride, and he was therefore relieved when on the morrow
Alexander explained that while he was not opposed to the
match, his sisters were entirely under the control of their
mother, whose consent it would be necessary to obtain.
Talleyrand arranged that Alexander should raise the sub-
ject at his interview with Napoleon the same morning, and
having suggested the words that he should use hurried back
to Napoleon to prepare him for W'hat was coming. Napoleon
was so pleased that the suggestion should emanate from
Alexander that he was quite willing that it should be left
entirely vague.’

Shortly afterwards the two Emperors separated, to all

TRIlASON

i8o

outward, appearances well pleased with themselves and with
one another, but it was Talleyrand whose will had triumphed
and who emerged the real victor from the diplomatic battle-
field of Erfurt.

3

When the two Emperors parted at Erfurt, the one get-
ting into the carriage that was to convey him to Paris and
the other returning to the north, Talleyrand whispered to
Alexander what a pity it was that they could not both take
the wrong carriages. Henceforth Alexander had two repre-
sentatives in Paris, his Ambassador, who was little but a
figurehead, knowing nothing of what was taking place
behind the scenes and providing by his ostentation of
wealth a continual source of amusement to the Parisians,
and Nesselrode, who w'as to play a considerable part in the
diplomatic history of the century, and who was now secretly
accredited to Talleyrand, and served as a channel for the
conveyance of information to St. Petersburg.

Alexander was naturally grateful to Talleyrand for the
assistance that he had rendered him at Erfurt, and Talley-
rand saw to it that this gratitude should take a practical
form. As he was without legitimate children, the heir to
all that he had accumulated and the future head of his
family was his brother’s son, Edmond, who had -now at-
tained the marriageable age of twenty-one. Talleyrand, in
whom the pride of family was strong, was determined that
this young gentleman should form a suitable alliance, if
only to make amends for the extremely unsuitable one that
he had formed himself. Difficulties stood in the way. So
far as birth was concerned there was no family in France
save royalty that could confer honour on the house of
Talleyrand, but the heiresses of great names who were not
in emigration were carefully superintended by the Emperor

TREASON ’ i8i

ind re«;'*rveil st rich rewards for his own nobilityj it being a
part of his policy thus to graft the new aristocracy upon a
remnant of the old. From his point of view nothing was to
be gained, and something indeed was to be feared, from a
union between two families that both had origins earlier
than the Revolution. Having forfeited already a large
portion of the Emperor’s favour, and confidently expecting
by his future conduct to forfeit more, Talleyrand had no
reason to suppose that in this matter an exception would be
made on his behalf. He had, on the contrary, good grounds
for thinking that Napoleon would be glad to repay an old
grudge by preventing any desirable match that might be
suggested. In the year 1803, before the Bonapartes had put
on the imperial purple, the First Consul had thought that a
Mademoiselle de Tallcyrand-Perigord would be a suitable
bride for his son-in-law, Eugene de Beauharnais, and when
the young lady in question was somewhat hastily affianced
and married to a member of the Noailles family, it was
rumoured that her uncle the Minister for Foreign Affairs
had had something to say in the matter. When therefore in
the year 1808 the Prince of Benevento was looking to
marry his nephew, it appeared plain that he would be well
advised to cast his eyes beyond the broad territories under
the sway of the Emperor Napoleon.

The Duchess of Courland was the widow of the last
reigning Duke of that province, which had subsequently
become incorporated with Russia. Although not old her-
self she was the mother of four daughters, three of whom
had already been given in marriage to bearers of the greatest
names in Europe, The youngest, Dorothea, was fifteen years
of age, and it was for her hand that Talleyrand approached
the Emperor. Alexander had no objection— the Duchess of
Courland, who, it was subsequently alleged, cherished the
project of supplanting Josephine on the throne of France,

tSa ’ TREASON

•

welcomed the match, and the young lady herself, who had
dreamed of becoming the bride of that romantic figure,
Prince Adam Czartoryski, banished the dream and with a
sigh accepted Count Edmond de Pcrigord, explaining to him
at the time that she did so solely in order to meet the wishes
of her mother, to which he replied with equal frankness that
he was actuated by no other motive than the desire to give
pleasure to his uncle.

4

During the late autumn months 'that followed the con-
ferences of Erfurt, Talleyrand took little pains to conceal
from his countrymen the lines along which his mind was
moving. Having deliberately thwarted his master’s plans
and being determined to go on doing so, a lesser man, see-
ing that that master was a despot, w'ould have been careful
to dissemble his opinions and conceal his movements. But
Talleyrand did the opposite. He went out of his way to
make it plain to Paris that he disapproved of the policy that
the Emperor was pursuing, and he allowed it to be believed
that he was engaged in conspiring with the Emperor’s
enemies for his overthrow.

He had been ordered by Napoleon, who had left for
Spain shortly after his return from Erfurt, to entertain on a
large scale in his absence, in order to give his supporters the
opportunity of meeting and to provide a means of keeping
in touch with their opinions. Talleyrand carried out these
instructions in the large new house that he had purchased
in the Rue de Varennes, but he allowed himself both at his
own banquets and also in the smaller, more intimate but
not more private salons that he frequented, to let drop those
biting epigrams and wounding sarcasms of which he was a
master and which always find their way to the ears where
they will be least welcome.

TREASON

183

The most sensational event in this campaign of intrigue
took place at a reception given in Talleyrand’s house in the
month of December, hor years the rivalry and mutual
dislike between Talleyrand and Fouch^ had been as fixed
and as familiar a feature in the political firmament as the
hostility between Bonapartes and Bourbons. When, there-
fore, the name of the Minister of Police was announced at a
reception given by the Prince of Benevento the other guests
could hardly believe their ears and turned to watch with
curiosity the encounter of two such adversaries. 'I'he
sensation seekers were not disappointed. The host limped
eagerly forward to extend the warmest of welcomes to the
new arrival, and linking arms with him proceeded to pace
up and down through the series of lofty apartments engaged
in long and eager conversation, while the rest of Paris
gazed and pointed, whispered and wondered.

The next morning the news that this conversation had
taken place was on its way to every capital in Europe. Not
least swiftly did it travel to Valladolid whence Napoleon was
now directing operations in the Peninsula. Had he remained
there longer the fortunes of that war would have been
changed, but he considered it of greater importance to
return to Paris. It was said that he had received reports to
the effect that the Austrian Government were taking steps
to prepare for a renewal of hostilities, but. Napoleon be-
lieved that an alliance between Talleyrand and Fouche was
more formidable than the mobilisation of Austria.

5

The question arises, and is not easy to answer, why
Talleyrand, who could control his tongue when he wished
and might have met Fouche a dozen times without any-
one being the wiser, should have gone about speaking his

TREASON

184

mind so freely, and should have made a public exhibition
of his latest friendship. He knew well that his words and
deeds would be reported and that Napoleon could put only
the worst interpretation upon them. The explanation can
only be that it was his policy at the time to form the nucleus
of an open opposition which should by its very publicity
be able to rally to itself all the discontented elements in the
country and which might thus become strong enough,
without overthrowing Napoleon, to exercise so powerful an
influence as to compel him to alter his policy in the direc-
tion in which all moderate men desired.

It is true that there was an embryonic plot on hand to
subsdtute Murat for Napoleon and that Talleyrand was
probably acquainted with it. But the fact that he was aware
of or even involved in a conspiracy never meant with him
that that was the only or even the main line that he was
pursuing at the time. The things that he said and the
actions tliat he took during this period were not those of a
man who is secretly conspiring for a coup d’dtat but rather
of one who is openly advocating a change of policy and
hoping to carry it by weight of opinion.

The shrewdest foreign observer in Paris during these
days was Metternich, the Austrian Ambassador. In Sep-
tember of this year (1808) he reported to his Government
as follows: ‘It is necessary to be at Paris, and to be there for
some time, to be able to judge of the real position of M. de
Talleyrand. In M. de Talleyrand one cannot but separate
the moral man from the political man. He would not have
been, he could not be, what he is if he were moral. He is,
on the other hand, pre-eminently a politician, and, as a
politician, a man of systems. . ^ .

‘Two parties exist in France as much opposed to one
another as the interests of Europe are to the individual
ideas of the Emperor. At the Bead of f>ne of these parties

TREASON

185

is the Emperor with all the military men. He only desires
to extend his influence hy force. . . . Napoleon sees nothing
in France but himself, nothing in Europe or in the whole
world but his family. . . . I'he other party is composed of
the great mass of the nation, an inert and unphable mass. . . .
At the head of this mass arc the eminent persons of the State,
M. de Talleyrand, the Minister of Police, and all those who
have fortunes to preserve.’

Metternich never ceases to insist in his communications
with his Government on the existence of this powerful op-
position. it was not confined to people of doiilitful reputa-
tions but included such stalwart heroes of the Napoleonic
legend as I.annes and Berthier. Even Caulaincourt, the
loyalest of the loyal, shared 'Palleyrand’s opinions and was,
for this reason, on the best of terms with him, although his
strict sense of honour would not allow him to do anything
to further his own views except to express them boldly to
his master. That indeed was the dilemma of those who
differed from Napoleon— they had either to continue carry-
ing out a policy that they condemned or else to pursue the
devious ways and dubious methods of Talleyrand and Fouche.

In December Metternich reports: ‘Two men in France
hold at this moment the first rank in opinion and influence—
M. de Talleyrand and M. Fouchd. Formerly opposed in
views and .interests, they have been drawn together by cir-
cumstances; I do not hesitate to say that at the present
time their object and their means of attaining it are the
same. . . . M. de Talleyrand has, since the campaign of
1805, opposed with all his influence the destructive plans of
Napoleon. . , , We po.sitively owe to him some more or less
favourable aspects in the Pressburg negotiation; he also
opposed as long as he could the campaign against Prussia.’
He goes on to trace how Napoleon got rid of Talleyrand
on account of his independent views and how Talleyrand

■ i%6

TREASON

and Fouch6 are now working for a general peace and not
for the overthrow of Napoleon but for the consolidation of
his position by a new marriage and the establishment of a
dynasty.

How far Metternich was correct in his interpretation of
their plans it is impossible to say. No man will ever know
all that took place behind the masks of Talleyrand and
Fouchd. It is true that they were both, especially Fouch^
zealous advocates of the divorce from the first, and it is true
that they both had more to hope for from a reformed
Napoleonic regime than from any experiment with the
Bourbons. Caroline Murat, who was probably Metternich’s
mistress at this time, seems to have been his informant.
He quotes her as being in the confidence of Talleyrand and
Fouch^. But she may not have told Metternich all that they
said, and they certainly did not say to her all that they
meant.

6

Returning post-haste from Spain, Napoleon reached the
Tuilerles on a 3rd January. A few days later he called a
special meeting of the privy council at which the Grand
Dignitaries of the Empire, including Talleyrand, and one
or two Ministers, Including Fouchd, were present. According
to one account Fouch^ had previously been summoned to a
private audience when he had been bitterly reproached for
the part that he had played. In any case he was merely a
spectator of the scene which now ensued.

Napoleon began with a few remarks of a general nature
to the effect that his Grand Dignitaries and his Ministers
had no right even to think for themselves, far less to give
their thoughts expression. To doubt was for them the begin-
ning of treason, to differ from him was the crime itself.
With that he turned upon Talleyrand who, in a characteriati-

TREASON

187

cally graceful and negligent attitude, was half leaning against
a small table by the fire. For one solid half-hour, without
interruption a steady flow of invective poured from the
Emperor’s lips. There was hardly a crime omitted from
the indictment, hardly a word of abuse that was not applied.
Talleyrand was called a thief, a coward, and a traitor. Fie
was told that he had never worthily performed a single
duty, that he had deceived everyone with whom he had
ever dealt, that he did not believe in God, and would sell his
own father, lie was accused of responsibility for the
excciUion of the Duke of Enghicn and for the Peninsular
War, Maddened by the impassivity of his victim, the
Corsican lost all control and proceeded to taunt him with
his lameness and to throw in his face the infidelity of his
wife. Finally, shaking his fist and seeming to be upon the
point of striking him he informed his Vice-Grand Elector
in the language of the camp, that he was nothing but so
much dung in a silk stocking.

The witnesses were horrified. The Emperor had behaved
in a manner for which a non-commissioned officer addressing
a recruit would have been reproved. Even M^neval, his
priv.'fe secretary and staunchest admirer, admits that he
forgot his imperial dignity. All testimonies, however, agree
that the one man in the room who seemed the least moved
by the outburst was the object of the attack. Talleyrand
never changed his attitude. No spark of colour appeared in
his pale cheeks. No flicker of an eyelid betrayed the fact
that he was conscious of being addressed.

The meeting broke up at the end of the tirade; the
Emperor was unfit for further business. As Talleyrand
limped slowly down the broad corridor he turned to one of
those who had been watching his ordeal and said_ calmly;
‘What a pity that such a great man should be so ill-bredl’

That evening he told the whole story to Madame de

i88

TREASON

L-aval as he reclined on a sofa in her drawing-room. She
was an old and a dear friend, by birth one of the last of the
great family of Montmorency. Her dark eyes, for which
she was celebrated, flashed with anger as she listened to
the catalogue of the insults that had been heaped on him.
‘You listened to that,’ she exclaimed at last in indignation,
‘and you didn’t snatch up a chair, the tongs, the poker, or
anything and fall upon him?’ ‘Ah,’ replied Talleyrand, ‘I
did think of doing so, but I was too lazy.’

If Talleyrand had acted as his hot-blooded friend sug-
gested he might have incurred serious penalties, and would
in any case have been debarred from playing any further
part in the history of the Empire, and from preparing that
more complete and satisfactory revenge for which hencefor-
ward his heart must have longed. Witnesses of the scene
and those to whom it was reported, naturally concluded
that it could only mean the end of Talleyrand, so far as
Napoleon was concerned. Talleyrand was determined that
it should mean nothing of the kind.

The next day was Sunday, and it was Napoleon’s custom
on Sundays to hold a reception at which he liked as many
Ministers as possible to be present. The Minister of
Finance, the Duke of Gaeta, was busy that day and, wishing
to waste as little time as possible at Court, went very early
to the reception in order to obtain a good place from which
he could slip early away. He reached the Palace before the
attendants had illuminated the apartments. When they did
so he was astonished to discover that he was not the first
arrival, for as the candles threw their light over the room
he was able to discern, standing by the fireplace, the im-
passive figure of the Vice-Grand Elector whom he had
thought never to behold at Napoleon’s Court again. Curi-
osity go't the better of Gaudin's desire to finish his work and
he waited after the Emperor had passed him in order to see

TREASON

189

what reception Talleyrand would obtain. Napoleon spoke
to the men on the right and on the left of him, ignoring his
presence.

On the following Sunday he was once more in his place.
Again on this occa'-ion it was his neighbour who was spoken
to and of whom a question was asked. The neighbour
hesitating for the answer Talleyrand immediately supplied
it, giving the information that Napoleon had asked for as
naturally as though they w^crc on the best of terms. The
ice was broken. If the Emperor had not sjiokcn to him he
had at least spoken to the Itmperor and there was no reason
w'hy their relations in future should not be as normal as
those between any master and servant after an ancry scene.
Napoleon probably regretted his loss of self-control and was
probably grateful to Talleyrand for easing the situation.
Possibly, also, he was blind enough to believe that such
insults, so offered, could be forgotten or forgiven. He
deprived Talleyrand of his position as Grand Chamberlain
but he continued to hold the empty honour of Vice-Grand
Elector,

Chapter Eight

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

r

During the next five years Talleyrand remained at the
Court of Napoleon In a position with which it is difficult
to find any parallel. He was out of favour. Fie had forfeited
for ever the confidence of the Emperor, who was continually
during that period receiving fresh proofs of his treacheiy.
Yet he continued to be Vice-Grand Elector and to fulfil the
functions that that office imposed on him.

Napoleon, when questioned afterwards as to his reasons for
not taking stronger measures to deal with Talleyrand before
it was too late, replied that in the first place he under-
estimated his power to injure him, and in the second place
he had still at this time some affection for the man. There
was probably truth in both explanations. His secret service
was extremely efficient, he employed agents within the circle
of Talleyrand’s intimate friends, and he therefore could feel
confident that he was being kept informed of every step
taken by his enemies, and so long as he continued to win
victories he had little to fear from them. At the same time
his overmastering consciousness of his own genius and his
exaggerated estimate of his own superiority over all his
contemporaries made it appear to him to be little less than
l^se-majesti towards himself to think it possible that any of
those whom he had employed were capable of doing him
serious injury.

Napoleon always grudged praise of other men’s abilities,

190

THE BEGINNING OF THE END 191

and on one occasion when he was discussing Talleyrand with
Count Mole went so far as to say that his great reputation
was more largely due to luck than to merit. ‘I swear to you/
he added, ‘that I could not truthfully say that he has ever
been of much assistance to me . . . and I don’t even think
that he is, as you say, a very clever man. You have only to
look at his life. He was by birth and position one of the
principal personages of the nobility and the clergy, and he
did everything in his power to contribute to their downfall.
When he came back from America he completed his degrada-
tion by publicly attaching himself to a stupid old courtesan.
I W'anted, in spite of himself, to get him out of that mess at
the time of the Concordat by asking the Pope to grant him
a cardinal’s hat and I nearly got it for him. Well, he wouldn’t
let me, and in spite of me and to the scandal of Europe he
married his shameful mistress from whom he could not even
hope to obtain children. He is certainly, as everybody
knows, the man who has stolen more money than anyone
in the world, and he hasn’t got a penny. I am obliged to
support him from my privy purse and to pay his debts even
now.’ ‘At least,’ said Mold, ‘the Emperor will grant me that
his conversation is full of elegance and charm.’ ‘Oh,’
replied the Emperor, ‘that is his triumph, and he knows it.’

To argue that a man is not clever because he makes a
foolish marriage or a bad speculation is as unreasonable as
it would be to maintain that he cannot have possessed great
gifts who only succeeded after twenty years of endeavour in
becoming the lonely exile of St. Helena. Yet in this way,
and with this manner of reasoning Napoleon persuaded him-
self that Talleyrand was a man of second-rate ability from
whom he had nothing to fear, and this conviction was
strengthened by the firm belief that he could never make his
peace with the Bourbons and therefore had nothing to gain
from the establishment of a new regime.

192 the beginning of the end

It does also appear that Napoleon had a genuine liking
for Talleyrand. As has alicady been said he was able when
they first met during the Directory to fascinate the young
soldier who had not before encountered anyone of equal
charm and distinction. This fascination died slowly for
Talleyrand w'as the type of man that Napoleon preferred,
and Metternich, who belonged to the same school, was
equally successful with him.

a

Eaily in 1809 war bioke out a*gain between France and
Austria, and in April Napoleon left Paris for the scene of
opetations. ITad Russia been prepared to render the assist-
ance that he demanded Napoleon would have had nothing
to fear from Austria, but Alexander, pursuing the policy
that Talleyrand had instilled into him at Erfurt, performed
the part of little more than an interested spectator, moving
troops occasionaUy from one part of the frontier to another,
but being careful not to strike a single effective blow on
behalf of his ally.

Whenever Napoleon was away from Paris intrigue and
conspiracy once more raised their heads with the indefatig-
able persistence with which trodden grass rises behind the
feet that have passed over it. FoucM, as we have seen, had
not shared in the disgrace of Talleyrand and the remainder
of this year was to mark the zenith of his career under the
Empire. Napoleon was more inclined to trust Fouch6 than
Talleyrand for the good reason that he found it more difficult
to believe that Fouch <5 could ever make his peace with the
Bourbons. Talleyrand had at least left France before the
Terror whereas Fouch^ had been a remorseless agent of the
Terror in the provinces, and had himself voted for the death
of the King, For the Liberal and the Constitutional there
might be forgiveness but surely the descendant of St.

193

THE BEGINNING OE THE END

Louis could never make peace with the Jacobin and the
regicide ?

Napoleon carried his campaign to a successful conclusion
and once more dictated peace from the palace of the Habs-
burgs but there were two events which robbed his victory
of half its glory and which stirred up hope in the hearts of
thousands who were weary of his rule.

During the attack on the towm of Ratisbon Napoleon was
wounded. The wound was slight hut the effect was im-
mense. In every corner of Europe men began to ask them-
selves: ‘If he were wounded again, if he were killed— what
then ?’ A year before there had been a plot to assassinate the
Bourbon claimant, and when a courtier congratulating him
upon his escape expressed his horror at the thought of how
terrible the results would have been if the design had suc-
ceeded, Louis XVIII replied calmly that nothing would have
been changed except that the King of France would have
been called Charles x. But Napoleon could not even pretend
to think that the result of his death would be merely to
change the name of the Emperor of the French to Joseph,
and a single incident, such as this of his receiving a wound,
served to show up the fragility of the whole imperial
structure.

More important, however, than any wound was the result
of the battle of Aspern where after two days of the hardest
fighting and the greatest slaughter the enemy were left
in possession of the field. Napoleon could send home mis-
leading bulletins, and it is true that the battle hardly affected
the result of the campaign, but swifter than the messengers
who carried his despatches word sped through Europe
that the ' great man was no more invincible than he was
immortal.

194

THE BEGINNING OE THE END

3

Meanwhile in Paris on the top of these disturbing rumours
it was reported that the English were despatching an ex-
peditionary force to the Low Countries. It seemed that the
very frontiers of France were in danger while the Emperor
with his army was at the other side of Europe, and it took
a month for a message to be sent to him and the answer
received. So utterly without initiative were the creatures
with whom Napoleon had filled the highest offices of state
that there was scarcely one amongst them, who, in these
critical circumstances, was prepared to assume the slightest
responsibility. To distract attention from tbeir own impotence
they attempted to minimise the danger; Fouchd alone, who
was now Acting Minister of the Interior as well as Minister
of Police, both realised how serious was the situation and
determined to meet it.

Fouchd had begun life in the Church, and the ex-Orator-
ian could appreciate the power of religion at its proper
value. Ever since Talleyrand had left the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs relations between Napoleon and the Vatican
had been growing more strained, and in the summer of this
same year the Emperor, invoking the authority of Charle-
magne, whom he described as ‘our august predecessor,’
annexed Rome to the Empire, and imprisoned the Pope
with such humiliating circumstances as to make it riecessaty
for His Holiness to rely upon his valet to serve him as a
private secretary. The news of these events, together with
the news of Napoleon’s wound at Ratisbon and defeat at
Aspern, was received by the devoutly Catholic population
of Belgium almost simultaneously with the report that the
English fleet was in the Channel with an army aboard, the
largest that had ever left the shores of England, and that
their immediate destination was the mouth of the Scheldt,

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

195

Fouchd decided to take action. His colleagues, including
the Minister of War, preferred to await instructions.* Of
the Grand Dignitaries Talleyrand alone supported him and
the support of Talleyrand no longer gave confidence to the
timorous that their action would meet with the approval of
their master. Fouche, whose official position should have
confined his attention to matters of police and internal
administration, decided to mobilise the National Guard, not
only without the approval, hut in direct opposition to the
wishes of the Minister of War. He sent out the necessary
instructions to the provinces, he saw to it that those instruc-
tions were carried out and he rallied to the defence of the
frontier an arm/ of 60,000 men. At the head of this army
that he had created Fouche proceeded, with an audacity
that still further astonished his colleagues, to place Berna-
dette, who was never from start to finish of his remarkable
career a loyal servant of Napoleon, and ‘who happened to
be in France at this moment only because he had been sent
home from the Austrian campaign in disgrace.

The results of Fouchd's independent action appeared to be
highly successful. The English expedition came to nothing,
defeated, it is true, not by Fouchd’s new army but by the
climate of the Isle of Walcheren and by the lack of co-opera-
tion between naval and military authorities. Stranger still,
the Emperor, instead of chastising Fouche, rewarded him
with the Duchy of Otranto and severely reprimanded those
who had hesitated to support him. With the political blind-
ness that was falling upon him Napoleon failed to realise
that the most important lesson provided by the events of the
year 1 809 was that one man, and even such a man as Fouche,
could, in his absence, take control of the Government of
France and call a new army into existence.

196

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

In his memoirs Talleyrand excuses himself for not having
taken advantage of the disfavour into which he had fallen
to retire at least temporarily from the stage and to devote
himself to the pleasures of a quiet life which nobody was
better fitted to appreciate. He explains how ‘at the period
of which I speak the calm pleasures of home life had ceased
to exist for the majority of people. Napoleon did not allow
one to become attached to them; he thought that those who
belonged to him must cease to belong to themselves.
Carried away by the rapidity of events, by ambition, by the
interest of each day, placed in that atmosphere of war and
political change which brooded over the whole of Europe,
people found it impossible to pay due regard to their private
affairs; public life occupied so great a part of their minds
that private life was never given a single thought. One
came to one’s house like a visitor owing to the necessity of
resting somewhere, but nobody was prepared to stay per-
manently at home.’

During these years Talleyrand’s r61e was a small one
but he was always busy behind, the scenes. Banished hence-
forth from Napoleon’s intimacy he continued to fulfil the
functions that were connected with his office, and thus in
November he w'as deputed to greet the King of Saxony on
his visit to France and to conduct him from the frontier to
the capital.

The question that was principally occupying people’s
minds at the end of this year was that of Napoleon’s divorce,
and in December his marriage with Josephine was finally
annulled. Talleyrand and Fouch6 who had combined in
working towards this end were divided when it came to
deciding upon her successor. Talleyrand, as was to be ex-
pected, favoured an Austrian princess, while Fouchd, true

THE BEGINNING OF THE END 197

to his Jacobin antecedents, regarded with suspicion any-
thing that came out of Austria, the country that has been
described as the Faubourg St. Germain of Europe.

In January 1810 a solemn council was held at which the
Grand Dignitaries and Ministers were asked to give their
views on the question. Cambaedres and Lebrun, who were
the first to speak, advocated the one a Russian and the other
a Saxon alliance. Murat and Fouchd supported the former.
When Talleyrand’s turn came he spoke at lenqth in favour of
an Austrian marriage. His secret motive w'as that he feared
lest, failing such an arrangement, Napoleon should destroy
Austria altogether. The preservation of Austria was still
one of the essential points of his consistent European policy.
The main reason, however, that he gave for advocating the
match was that it would serve as a means of expiating the
crimes of the Revolution, especially the execution of the
Queen, who was also an Austrian archduchess, and thus
reconciling France with Europe. The course that was thus
recommended was the one adopted and the marriage took
place in the following April. _

For once Fouch^ had been found on the losing side
and he proceeded to make other and graver errors. The
success which had attended his independent policy during
Napoleon’s absence seems to have turned his head. Having
successfully made, or threatened to make, war on his bwn
initiative, he now sought to try his hand at the more difficult
business of making peace. When it was discovered that he
had secretly and without any authority opened negotiations
with England Napoleon’s patience was exhausted. He was
not only relieved of his office but compelled to leave the
country, his disgrace being thus rendered more complete
than that wliich had befallen Talleyrand in the previous
year.

198

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

5

Among those who were attracted to Paris by the festivities
in honour of the Emperor’s marriage was a Polish lady, the
Countess Potocka, who had already come into contact with
many of the principal members of the Imperial Court in her
native capital of Warsaw four years before. She had then
formed a deep romantic attachment to the Count de
Flahaut which may have proved a more potent reason than
the desire to witness an historic ceremony for the eagerness
with which she sought and obtained her husband’s consent
to her visit to France in the year 1810. To her pen we owe
a vivid account of French society at the time and particularly
of the circle by whom Talleyrand was surrounded.

She made the greater part of the journey in a carriage
with Talleyrand’s old friend, Narbonne, and was as delighted
with his astonishing powers of conversation as she was
amused by his elaborate efforts at seduction. She belonged
already to a different age (she died in 1867), in which con-
versation had ceased to be an art and love-making was
taken seriously.

Her natural sponsor in Paris was her aunt, the Countess
Tyszkiewicz, a lady of some forty-five summers who had
long been and who remained a member of what her niece
irreverently termed Monsieur de Talleyrand’s elderly
seraglio.

The most prominent star in that constellation was, for
the time being, the Duchess of Courland, the mother of the
young Countess Edmond de P^rigord. To her Talleyrand
was sincerely, even passionately, devoted, and his letters to
her which remain are the most fervent that he is known to
have written. She was no longer young but it was generally
admitted that she retained a great deal of her beafity. She
was enormously rich and her dresses and jewels were objects

THE BEGINNING OF THE ENH Ui<j

of universal admiration, d’he Countess Potocku recounts of
her that often she would arrive lon^ after midnight in the
salon where the little coterie were collected, having come
for the express purpose of showing them her ball dress or
a new jewel, ‘just as a girl of twenty might have done.’

The judgments of the Polish Counters on Parisian affairs
and personalities are not flattering. Her relations with
Monsieur de Flahaut were more romantic than pleasant, his
freedom being considerably hampered by the fait that he
was carrying on a more serious liaison with the Ouecn of
Holland, that he was also slightly entangled with the Queen
of Naples, and that he was not entirely neglecting certain
lesser luminaries such as the celebrated Mademoiselle Mars,
Knowledge or suspicion of these happenings may have
thrown a shadow over the Countess’s stay in Paris and may
account for the unprepossessing picture that she draws of
the society in which she moved. •

On her first visit to Talleyrand’s house she and the other
guests were informed that he had been detained at Court,
an explanation which they found satisfactory, ‘but what did
seem strange to us was that when W'e entered the drawing-
room we found only the Princess’s “lady-in-waiting” there
to receive us and we were told that “Her Highness, tempted
by a ray of sunshine, had gone out for a turn in the Bois.” ’
When the Princess returned after having kept her guests
waiting for an hour she offered no apologies, believing, the
Countess suggests, that ordinary politeness was beneath her
dignity. Her appearance, she adds, was absurd, for she
looked fully sixty years of age but, being persuaded by
flatterers that she was still beautiful, she wore the clothes
and the adornments of youth.

‘Whether M. de Talleyrand was of the party or not the
atmosphere in his house was always deadly dull. I have
seldom received the same impression elsewhere. And yet

200

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

the majority of those who regularly went there were intel-
ligent people. But the Princess, in addition to her natural
inanity, was so pretentious and set such store by etiquette
that she became insupportable, so that people who were
independent and had no business affairs with the Prince^
went there only when they were sure to find him alone,
‘About once a week M. de Talleyrand’s society met at my
aunt’s house when I found it hardly more amusing. She
invited distinguished compatriots and foreigners who were
passing through. Her house was very fashionable,

‘I cannot express what a disagreeable surprise it was for
me when I found that the only form of amusement there was
gambling for huge sums. The bank was taken by unknown
people to whom nobody spoke. They spread out their
wealth on the table in order to tempt the players. People
seemed afraid to touch them and treated them like pariahs.
. . , There was something humiliating and satanic about it
all. Desire of gain was the presiding genius. The strained
faces of the players, the gloomy impassivity of the bankers,
the silence which reigned in this room — where the fate of an
.entire family was often risked in a single night — it all
seemed to me hateful. I could not conceal my surprise,
perhaps .even my naive indignation, but my aunt replied
coldly that one could see that I had come from far away,
that similar amusements took place everywhere, and that
the Prince, who worked so hard, took part in distractions at
her house which his position rendered impossible at his
own.’ *

The Countess Potocka was not amused by the society
into which her. aunt introduced her. Her sympathies were
with the Emperor whose very loyal aide-de-cmip was the
Count de Flahaut. Her aunt's friends were all of the
Faubourg St. Germain, who were in opposition to the exist-
ing regime. ‘They belittled everything, bewailed every-

THE BEGINNING OF THE END aot

thing, and did not amuse themselves at all.’ She made an
exception, however, in favour of the house of Madame de
Lava], Talleyrand’s dark-eyed friend and the only one,
according to some accounts, who exercised any influence
over him. ‘This intelligent woman had made the best of
things. She gloried, so to speak, in being poor, never spoke
of what she had lost and did not seem to resent the flict
that other people had grown rich— her attitude seemed to
be that it was only right that their large fortunes should
console them for not having been born a Montmorency.

‘A select circle, which included the younger people of
all parties, who indeed vied with one another for admittance,
met often in the Viscountess’s little drawing-room; to go
there was a certificate of being good company and of having
good taste. The household staff consisted of one footman
and a negress who was half slave and half confidante; she
used to come in to make the tea. At these very unpretentious
receptions I met all the most distinguished people in Paris.
Monsieur de Talleyrand and the Duchess pf Courland were
among the most regular attendants. Madame de Talleyrand
never came. She knew her place. It was there only that I
heard people converse without restraint; politics and party
spirit were excluded. With exquisite tact Madame de
Laval controlled the subject of conversation; as soon as she
saw the actors playing their parts she was sjlent and seemed
absorbed in her thick wool knitting, unless some question
of particular interest roused her to take part. Then the
others in their turn were silent; she spoke with such grace,
originality, and point that everybody fell under her charm.
She had been extremely pretty; her dark eyes, so soft and
intelligent, still shone with surprising lustre.’

It is plain that the Polish Countess produced a favourable
impression on Napoleon both at Warsaw and in Paris, and
the culminating point of her success was an invitation to

ioa THE BEGINNING OF THE END

Saint Cloud where she dined at the Emperor’s table. On
the very next day ‘M. de Talleyrand, who had not thought
of calling on me before and had only left a card, came in
person ‘to hear the details of my dinner of the previous even-
ing. He questioned me very skilfully on what I had seen and
heard; I only told him what he probably knew already; con-
trary to his habit he was extremely agreeable, he talked to
me of Poland and was full of praises and finally he fixed a
day for me to have luncheon with him in his library. I went
to this invitation with some eagerness and, as I make a
point of always speaking the truth, I must confess that I
never passed a more charming morning. M. de Talleyrand
did me the honours of his collection; it was natural that so
wealthy a connoisseur should have collected the most
beautiful and the rarest editions, but the charming manner
in which he showed me his books was beyond comparison;
he never told one anything that one could know already, nor
anything that other people had already said or written; he
talked very little about himself and g great deal about the
distinguished people with whom he had come in contact.
In a word he was as Well educated as it is possible for a
great nobleman to be if he devotes a lot of time to pleasure.
To complete this flattering portrait, which is not that of a
flatterer, I will say that M. de Talleyrand possessed a
marvellous art of making one forget his past when he talked
about the present.’

Once again that' invincible charm of his had succeeded
in temporarily winning over a woman who thoroughly dis-
liked and disapproved of him.

6

The books of which he was so proud and which he showed
to Madame Potocka in the early part of i8io were not to

THE BEGINNING OF THE END 203

remain much longer in his possession. Napoleon’s disastrous
commercial policy was causing economic distress in all parts
of Europe where the blockade was effective. Many impor-
tant banking houses were ruined, amongst others the Belgian
firm of Simons with which Talleyrand was connected, no
doubt through the medium of his fair hostess of the night
of 19 Brumaire. He lost a veiy large sum in this catastrophe
and found himself unable to meet his creditors, Once
more, as in 1792, he sold his library but although the
present collection was very much more valuable than the
former one,, the proceeds of the sale were quite inadequate
to meet his needs.

In this predicament he appealed to the Emperor of Russia
for help. It is deplorable that delicac)', if no stronger motive,
should not have prevented him from asking for financial
assistance from a foreign ruler with whom he, although a
high official in his own countr)', was in secret communica-
tion. Alexander was more sensitive, and replied to his
application with a epurteous but decisive refusal. He
pointed out, in carefully guarded language, in what a false
position both lender and borrower would be placed by such a
transaction. The difficulty was eventually surmounted,
thanks to Napoleon, who purchased for a large sum Talley-
rand’s house in the Rue de Varennes in order to oblige him.
Perhaps even stronger motives should have prevented
Talleyrand from receiving a favour from Napoleon at this
time than those which ought to have deterred him from
applying for one to Alexander, but his conduct with regard
to money from the beginning to the end of his career is
indefensible. He had only one principle so far as money
was concerned which he himself enunciated in youth and
clung to in age; ‘H ne faut jamais 6trc pauvre diable.’

104 the beginning OF THE END

7

The scene of Talleyrand’s activities between the years
1809 and 1814 was laid in the private houses of his friends,
and it is' therefore to those whose chronicles are principally
concerned with private life that we must turn for the material
of his biography during this period.

The Countess Kiehuannsegge was, like the Countess
Potocka, a foreigner, being born of a princely Saxon house;
like her She was possessed of considerable personal attrac-
tions, like her she was in her early thirties, and like her she
found herself on her arrival in Paris received as an intimate
in the circle which Talleyrand frequented. Her link with it
was the Duchess of Courland, with whom she was on terms
of the closest friendship and whose assistance she sought in
order to procure the release of her husband, who had
recently been arrested in Hanover for participation in a con-
spiracy against the Napoleonic regime. She was on no good
terms with the Count, and was livir^g apart from him, but
felt It her duty, as she expressed it herself, to save the father
of her children. Under the powerful patronage of the
Duchess she found no difficulty in obtaining access to
Napoleon of whom she became immediately and remained
until the day of her death an enthusiastic, almost an ecstatic
worshipper. She soon, therefore, lost all sympathy with the
aristocratic, discontented society in which she found herself
and in which she remained with the sole purpose of acting
as spy and informer. This task she was enabled to carry
out the more satisfactorily after she had entered into some-
what intimate relations with Savary, Duke of Rovigo, who
had taken Rouch6’s place as Minister of Police.

She has described her first impression of Talleyrand as
follows: ‘When h^ approached me with his limping gait,
his heavy body, his flashing eyes, his snake-like mouth and

THE BEGINNING OF THE END 105

jaWj his paralysing smile, and his alFected flatteries, I thought:
“Nature gave you the choice between snake and tiger, and
you chose to be an anaconda.” I'his first impression re-
mained with me. Before I knew him better I avoided being
alone with him owing to a certain feeling of discomfort. . . ,
When I did Come to know him I found him easy in company
both from disposition and from laziness, weak from halnt
and inclination, powerful in intellect and eloquence, clever
and tireless in ensnaring those who easily gave' in, who
could be of use to him and whose itiinds allowed themselves
to he enslaved.’

She spent the greater part of the summer and early
autumn of 18 ir at St. (iermains, where the Duchess of
Courland had taken a s”m\ll chateau that had formerly been
a hunting-box of I lenri iv’s. According to her own account
she found herself in a world of ceaseless intrigue and con-
spiracy, The Duchess’s letters to the Czar were composed
by Talleyrand and the fair copy was written out by Madame
deLaval. Nesselrodewas constantly in thecircle. Her dislike
of Talleyrand grew into hatred. ‘When he rode so clumsily
on his small chestnut under the tall oaks of the forest or
through the fields of roses, swinging his cane the while,
faster or slower in accordance with the speed of his thoughts,
when he showed off his deceptive paradoxes in thesalon where
Henri iv once lived, then I could not help thinking; “Would
to God that you were under the earth, for you will have no
peace until you have crushed underfoot all the friendliness
of heart, all the nobility of mind that exists In the world.” ’

One day news was brought of a scene that Napoleon had
made at Court in which he had reduced the young Countess
Edmond to tears by his abuse of her husband’s family. She
had had, however, the spirit to reply: ‘My husband and my
uncle have at all times served your Majesty with zeal. It
rests with you to make further use of them. And surely their

2o6 the beginning OF THE END

earlier services have at least deserved that your Majesty should
not ridicule them,’ Talleyrand’s comment on the scene was
brief: ‘It seems a poor way,’ he said, ‘of proving his power.’

In the same month of August another incident took place
which seemed to threaten more serious consequences. One
evening as the Countess Kielmannsegge was leaving the
chateau she met a gendarme at the doorway who inquired
if M. de Talleyrand were within. He was the bearer of a
letter frdm the Minister of Police.

The grounds of the complaint that the letter contained
appear to have been that Talleyrand’s wife, who had been
forbidden both by the Emperor and by Talleyrand to meet
again her Spanish friend, the Duke of San Carlos, had con-
trived to do so; what harm, save to themselves, a meeting
between these elderly lovers could have done, or why Talley-
rand should have been blamed for it, is difficult to follow.
That such an interdict should have been imposed reveals
the extent and the pettiness of Napoleon’s tyranny.

The threat of sharing his wife’s exile if he could not
control her movements was the gist of the message he
received. Exile from Paris was, for him, almost a death
sentence and never so deadly as in these eventful years. It
is on this occasion that the Countess pays Talleyrand her
only compliment. ‘The whole behaviour of Prince Talley-
rand and the general moderation of the sentiments that he
expressed compelled admiration. He wrote his answer,
destroyed and changed it several times — accordingly as his
feelings grew stronger— and showed us each of the drafts.
I saw the man, that strange man, just as he might have been
without wickedness. He gave his answer to the gendarme at
one in the morning. At five he was in the carriage in order to
be at theDukeof Rovigo’s lev^e,’ He returned the same even-
ing, the whole matter having been satisfactorily terminated.

The Countess, whose romantic temperament was apt to

THE BEGINNING OF THE END 207

see things in terms of melodrama, has left ur. a graphic
description of how once, listening at the door, she over-
heard the three conspirators, Talleyrand, the Duchess, and
Madame de Laval perfecting their plans. ‘And that is how
we shall destroy him,’ were Talleyrand’s last words. ‘We
shall destroy him, we shall destroy him’— -repeated the two
ladies, clapping their hands and throwing their arms round
each other’s necks. The Countess walked holiily into their
midst, which so much alarmed them that the Duchess sub-
sequently attempted to swear her to secrecy. She refused,
however, to give any promise and warned them never again
to betray themselves in her presence.

Talleyrand enjoyed during these years the companion-
ship of a young girl who had grown up from childhood in
his household. Her name was Charlotte; she was now about
thirteen or fourteen years of age; her parents were unknown.
It was generally believed that Talleyrand was her father and
his tender love for her confirmed the theory. As to who was
her mother there were many rumours, but such as have come
down to us do not bear investigation. Many believed that
she was of royal birth, but romantic imaginations arc always
inclined to fill up blanks with the names of royalty. He was
deeply interested In her education, he enjoyed riding with
her in the country, and a few years later he married her to
one of his nephews. She lived until 1873, when she died
her death certificate recorded that she was the child of
unknown parents.

8

In February 1812 Talleyrand was appointed one of the
Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of General Dupont
in the matter of the capitulation of Baylen. He was much
impressed by the defence and was in favour of taking a
lenient view of what had at worst been only an error of

io8 THE BEGINNING OF THE END

weakness. Napoleon insistedj despite the recommendation
of the Commissionj on condemning Dupont to imprison-
ment for life, a sentence which he was serving two years
later when Talleyrand procured his release and his pro-
motion to the post of Minister of War under the Restoration.

Later in the year there seemed to be a further prospect
of practical employment for the Vice-Grand Elector. Al-
though Napoleon would not commit himself to a definite
policy with regard to Poland it was most important for
him to be able to rely, during the Russian campaign, on the
enthusiastic support of the Poles. The position of his
Ambassador at Warsaw would therefore be one of great
responsibility and would demand the exercise of first-rate
diplomatic and political ability. Despite the grave misgiving
with which he already regarded Talleyrand, Napoleon
appears to have decided to entrust him with this mission for
which he obviously possessed the necessary qualifications.
But whether, as Countess Kielmannsegge asserts, some of
Talleyrand’s ladies talked too imprudently about the
appointment before it was_ confirmed, or whether Savary’s
version is correct that the Emperor wrongly suspected
Talleyrand of speculating in exchanges when he was only
obtaining the necessary Polish currency to enable him to
take up the post, whatever the reason may have been, the
offer was withdrawn and Napoleon sent instead to Warsaw
the Abb6 de Pradt, whose hopeless incompetence proved
more disastrous than treachery and whose mistakes con-
tributed largely towards the approaching calamity.

9

With the departure of the Emperor for the Russian front
treason once more grew busy, and very soon began to thrive
and fatten upon the reports which reached Paris of unsuc-

THE BEGINNINO OF THE END

209

cessful military operations. Among the many who were
dabbling in this dangerous pastime was a lady of singular
charm and beauty who had had already a somewhat tem-
pestuous career.

Aim^e de Coigny, married in early youth to the youthful
Duke de Fleury, had during the forty-two years that she
had lived inspired many passions, one of which had
bequeathed to her a lasting monument in the pages of
French literature, for it was her beauty w'hich in prison had
moved Andre Chenier to write the verses addressed to La
Jeune Captive a few days before -his head fell under the
guillotine. Another inhabitant of the same prison was
Talleyrand’s friend Montrond, who was not one to waste
time in writing verses, but, making more practical use of
his opportunities, succeeded both in winning the heart of
his lovely fellow captive and, by judicious bribery of the
gaolers, in postponing the day of her and his execution
until after the fall of Robespierre and the end of the Terror.
Aimee, in gratitude, married her deliverer, having previously
divorced her first husband. But neither she nor Montrond
was made for matrimony and more than one liaison inter-
vened before we find her in the year 1812 living with the
Marquis Bruno de Boisgelin.

Aim^e de Coigny had always adopted with enthugiasm
the political views of her ruling lover and she had thus al-
ready held nearly every shade of opinion from red republic-
anism to white reaction. Boisgelin had formerly been an
emigrant and he was now an eager advocate of Bourbon
restoration. Neither of them were in their first youth and
politics therefore occupied a larger portion of their time than
would have been expected in the case of a younger couple.
Aim^e de Coigny was on terms of friendship with Talley-
rand, They belonged to the same world, they had both
adapted too easily the new conditions to their own conven-

210 THE BEGINNING OF THE END

ience, and they had both forfeited the respect but not the
admiration of their contemporaries. She had difficulty in
bringing Boisgelin round to her own opinion. ‘I found him
full of the prejudices which the emigrants harboured against
the Bishop of Autun, regarding his conduct from a narrow
point of view, reproaching him for his changes of form and
even of fortune without thinking that the situation in which
he found himself had changed much more often than he,
and that having always played an active part in events he
had used his influence to modify them and to guide them so
far as possible towards an order of things where there was
some hope of improvement.’ Under the influence of his
mistress Boisgelin soon came to realise that the Bourbons
had no hope in France unless they could secure the support
of a powerful section among those who had hitherto been
loyal to Napoleon, that it was of the first importance to
obtain a leader for such a section, and that Talleyrand was
the man fclearly designated for that position.

The presence of Boisgelin in the Rue St. Florentin would
have aroused suspicion but nothing could be more natural
than the visits of Aimde de Coigny. ‘The weather was fine’
(in the summer of 1812) ‘and nearly every morning I went
out for a walk which ended at the house of M. de Talley-
rand. I often found him in his library surrounded by people
who either liked or were engaged in' literature. Nobody can
talk like M. de Talleyrand in a library; he takes up a book
and puts it down again,. contradicts it, leaves it and returns
to it, questions it as though it were a living being, and this
procedure both enriches his conversation with the pro-
fundity and the experience of the ages and gives to the
works in question a grace which their authors often lacked.’
It is curious that Aimde de Coigny and Anna Potocka,
who possibly never met, and certainly never read one
another’s reminiscences, should have both been struck

THE BEGINNING OF THE END 211

by the same quality in Talleyrand and should have both
recorded it.

Aimde de Coigny became henceforth a regular attendant at
all the houses where the discontented faction were accustomed
to meet. She describes them as being dominated by ‘the
enchanting grace of Madame de Laval, the soft conversational
murmur of the Bellegarde ladies, my own efforts to please
and to amuse myself and the inexpressible charm which M.
de Talleyrand can exercise when he does not conceal it in
a disdainful silence. It was at these meetings that I got
into the habit of M. de Talleyrand and acquired the neces-
sary familiarity to be able to talk to him about anything
without embarrassment.’

As the winter of 1812 wore on,' as the news from the seat
of war grew worse, when the astonishing coup d’dtat of the
half insane General Mallet almost succeeded, and when the*
celebrated 29th bulletin revealed to the Parisians the extent
of the disaster, it seemed that Talleyrand was right in
describing the Moscow campaign as the beginning of the
end, and that the end itself could not be far distant. And
then on the 19th of December Paris awoke to the surprising
information that the Emperor' had returned overnight. ‘I
ceased my frequent visits to M. de Talleyrand for fear of
compromising him, and I moderated the language with
which I was trying to stir up discontent.’ So wrote Aimde
de Coigny. Once more and for the last time treason hung
its head, criticism sank to a whisper, and conspiracy crept
underground.

10

Never had Napoleon befen in such dire need of wise
counsel as during the winter months that followed the
retreat from Moscow. Talleyrand, who had not been afraid
to urge peace upon him in the hour of victory was equally

2IZ THE BEGINNING OF THE END

insistent upon the necessity of concluding it now before
defeat should result in complete destruction. 'Negotiate
while you still have something to negotiate with/ was the
tenor of his advice. Napoleon saw the wisdom of it and
invited him to return to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
He refused, replying coldly: ‘I am not acquainted with your
affairs.’ For four years he had been banished from the
Emperor’s confidence; how could he now at a moment’s
notice pick up again the tangled skein of foreign policy?
‘You are trying to betray me,’ exclaimed the Emperor.
‘No,’ replied the Prince, ‘but I will not assume office because
I believe that your views are contrary to what I believe to
be for the glory and the happiness of my country,’ This is
Aim^e de Coigny’s account of what happened and it is
probably coloured in Talleyrand’s favour. Savary tells us
that Talleyrand would not accept the post because Napoleon
insisted that he should at die same time resign the office of
Vice-Grand Elector. As this would have been the Opposite
to promotion Napoleon can hardly have been surprised at
Talleyrand’s attitude. What is certainly true is that the
offer was made and was refused.

Early in 1813 Napoleon appears to have received unques-
tionable proof that Talleyrand was in communication with
his enemies. He was strongly tempted to take violent
measures but he still hesitated. Talleyrand was after all one
of the Grand Dignitaries 0/ the Empire. From the nights
when they had conspired together against the Directory,
throughout the glorious days of the Consulate, right on
unpl the culminating triumph of Tilsit, Talleyrand had
always been at his elbow with wise counsel that he had not
always followed. To strike down such a man, now vfhen
the storm was threatening, would be like striking down one
of the pillars of his own house. Rotten it might be but the
moment seemed hardly well chosen foi; internal reconstruc-

THE BEGINNING OF THE END 213

tion. So he contented himself with repetitions of the scene
of January 1809, calling Talleyrand a traitor to his face and
threatening to shoot or hang him. After one of these scenes
Talleyrand’s comment to the assembled courtiers was;
‘The Emperor is charming this morning.’

In April Napoleon returned to Germany to fight the
campaign that was to end at Leipzig, and Aim^e de Coigny
resumed her visits to the Rue St. Florentin. Talleyrand
appears to have encouraged her in the belief that it was she
who gradually persuaded him to favour the return of Louis
xvin. At first he spoke to' her of a regency for the King of
Rome, and then of a national monarchy under the Duke of
Orleans. Finally, when she insisted on speaking of the
legitimate heir he explained to her the difficulties of his own
position. ‘I could put up well enough with the Count
d’Artois because there is something between him and me
which would explain much of my conduct’— (referring
doubtless to their midnight interview in July 1789)— ‘but
his brother does not know me at all. I confess that I have no
wish to expose myself to forgiveness instead of gratitude,
or to havq to defend myself.’ Aim^e then told him of a
precious letter which she and Boisgelin had been long work-
ing at and which was to be conveyed to Louis xviii in
England explaining to him the situation in France and
insisting particularly upon the importance of Talleyrand’s
adherence to his cause. Talleyrand told her to bring the
letter to him on the following day.

She ran home, fell into the arms of Boisgelin who was
awaiting her and cried; ‘He is ours, he wants to read your
letter to the King.’ ‘Nothing could equal Bruno’s transport
• of joy. We set ourselves to copying out the letter, taking
particular trouble over the paragraph that concerned M. de
Talleyrand.’

On the morrow she took the letter to Talleyrand who read

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

ii4

it aloud and commented upon it very favourably. He told
her that she and her friend could count upon him,' and
encouraged her to carry on the correspondence with
England. Then he burnt the letter. ‘He twisted up
the paper, lit it from a candle, threw it in flames into the
fireplace and crossed the shovel and the tongs above it so
as to prevent the ashes from flying up the chimney. “It
is only from a statesman,” I said, “that one learns how
to destroy a secret very secretly.” ’

II

During the summer and autumn of 1813 the fortunes of
Napoleon continued to fall. After the disaster of Leipzig
in October he was almost surrounded by the enemy but
succeeded in hacking his way through at Hanau and
returned to France with his adversaries pressing on his
heels.

Madame de la Tour du Pin was passing through Paris
in November and was anxious for some authentic news to
take back to her husband who was now holding the post
of Prefect at Amiens. She called on Talleyrand. ‘He
received me, as ever, with that graceful and pleasant fam-
iliarity which he has always shown towards me. He has
received much abuse and has probably deserved more but
in spite of everything he possessed charm such as I have
never met with in any other man.’ He advised her not to
leave Paris that day, which had been her intention, as the
Emperor was arriving on the morrow and he promised to
visit her after he had seen him.

On the following afternoon she heard the cannon which
announced the Emperor’s return. At ten o’clock her
carriage was waiting at the door, but it was not until eleven
that Talleyrand arrived. She was breathless for news.

THE BEGINNING OF THE END 215

‘What madness to travel in this cold weather,’ he said, and
asked her in whose apartment it was that she was staying.
It belonged, she explained, to Lally Tollendal, the same
who had read his tragedy aloud at Juniper Hall just twenty
years before. Talleyrand picked up a candle and began to ex-
amine the pictures on the wall : ‘ “Ah, ha, Charles ii, James ii
— that’s right,” he commented, and put the candle back on
the table. “Heavens,” I cried, “what have Charles ii and
James 11 got to do with it.^* You have seen the Emperor.
How is he.^ What are his plans ? What does he say after his
defeat.!”’ “Qh, don’t bother me with your Emperor, he’s
finished.” “How finished?” I said.” “Whatdo’youmean ?” “I
mean,” he said, “that he is a man who is ready to hide under
a bed.” ... I knew of M. de Talleyrand’s hatred and rancour
against Napoleon, but never had I heard him express it
with such bitterness. I asked him a thousand questions to
which he only replied with the words : “He has lost all his
equipment— he is finished— that’s all.” Then he drew out
of his pocket a printed paper in English and throwing a
couple of logs on the fire, said: ‘-‘Let’s burn a little more of
poor old Lally’s wood.. Here, as you know English, read
me this paragraph.” At the same time he showed me a fairly
long article marked in pencil in the margin.’ It was an
account of a dinner-party given by the Prince Regent in
honour of the Duchess of Angoul6me— the daughter of
Louis XVI. ‘When I had read it I stopped and looked at him
in amazement. He took back the paper, folded it slowly,
put it into his huge pocket and said with that exquisite sly
smile that only he possessed: “Oh, how stupid you, are!
Now be off, but don’t catch cold.” He rang and told the
footman to call my carriage. Then he left me, saying as he
was putting on his coat : “Give my love to Gouvernet” (her
husband’s former title). “I send him that for his breakfast.
You will get therein time.”’ She understood the message

2i6 the beginning OF THE END

and delivered it when she arrived at Amiens in the
early morning, but even then neither she nor her
husband found it easy to believe that they were shortly to
witness the end of the Empire and the return of the
Bourbons.

Chapter Nine

the restoration

1

All that winter and on into the early spring of 1814 the
tide of battle swayed between Paris and the frontier. For
the first time Napoleon was fighting on French soil, and for
the first time he was fighting with his back to the wall.
Military experts have held the view that this was, from a
purely technical standpoint, the most brilliant of his cam-
paigns, and that never had his genius shown itself to better
advantage. But whatever may be thought of his general-
ship during these months, it cannot be denied that the
faults in statesmanship and diplomacy which had char-
acterised his career were never more gross or glaring. In
the days of victory these qualities had been inconvenient to
his adversaries, in the days of defeat they proved fatal to
himself.

Three armies, those of Russia, Austria and Prussia were
marching on Paris, while Wellington was carrying all before
him in the south. More than once during these days of
anguish Napoleon exclaimed: Tf only Talleyrand were
here— he would get me out of it.’ But, in truth, no Minister
could have saved him, except one who could have compelled
him to pursue a consistent policy, and not to change his
terms of peace daily, and almost hourly, with every altera-
tion in the varying fortunes of the war.

In Nbvember the Allies actually offered him the natural
frontiers of France — the Rhine, the Alps, and the Pyrenees.

ai7

2i8 the restoration

That they should have made so generous an offer streng-
thened his opinion of his own position. He refused it. A
fortnight later he would gladly have accepted, but it was too
late. Again, in February, he was offered terms which would
have left France the frontiers of 1791, terms which his
Minister for Foreign Affairs, the faithful but clear-sighted
Caulaincourt, was anxious to accept, but having recently
scored one or two striking military successes he was now
unwilling to listen to any terms, and even refused the Allies’
offer of an armistice. Such conduct strengthened the bonds
— always in danger of dissolving — which held the Allies
together and gave life to the belief which was beginning to
develop in many of their minds that a satisfactory peace
with Napoleon was impossible.

Meanwhile behind the battle front Paris waited— a city
of rumour, of conspiracy, of hope. Napoleon’s popularity
had vanished. Gradually the conviction grew that his rule
was over, but great differences of opinion existed as to what
alternative was either possible or desirable. It had taken
Talleyrand some time to reconcile himself to the restoration
of the^old dynasty. The minds of his countrymen were
moving slowly in the same direction. Meanwhile it seemed
to him of some importance that the Bourbons should be
made aware of his willingness to welcome their return before
that return actually took place.

It was, however, one thing to talk treason in the safety
of a Royalist salon, it was quite another to enter into active
correspondence with the exiled princes, discovery of which
might cost the culprit his life. The inhabitants of Paris
were so cut off from the world that it was only from one
smuggled copy of an English newspaper that they learnt of
the departure of the Count d’ Artois for the Continent and
of the Duke of AngoulSme for the south of France. Mean-
while they received exaggerated reports of Napoleon’s

THE RESTORATION

219

victories, no word of his defeats and the disturbing intel-
ligence that the Allies had opened negotiations with him at
Chatillon.

A brave and a loyal messenger was needed who would
carry through the line defended by Napoleon’s army to the
allied statesmen, and if possible to the Bourbon Princes
themselves, news of the increased support which their cause
was beginning to obtain in the capital. Such a man was
available in the person of the Baron de Vitrolles, one of
those faithful and fearless supporters of the old order,
whose belief in the righteousness of their cause was as
sincere as their religion, and whose services were as valuable
in moments of crisis as they were embarrassing after the
victory was won. The Baron had already fought for the
cause, but this was his first introduction into the great
world of high politics and he has left us in his memoirs the
impression that it produced on him. He was naturally
alarmed at the prospect of negotiating with statesmen whose
names were already famous throughout Europe, but the more
he saw of them the less he thought of them, and it appeared
to him that both Talleyrand and Fouch6 were rather lacking
in intelligence as neither of them seemed to have a clear
idea of exactly what it was he wanted. Politics are indeed a
simple science to honest souls like the Baron de Vitrolles,
who believe that all solutions of the problem save their own
are wrong, and who are prepared to die for their cause.

So the Baron de Vitrolles set out upon his dangerous
quest, and after thrilling adventures and hair-breadth
escapes reached first the Allies and finally the Count
d’ArtoIs. But he carried with him no written word from
Talleyrand, nor any visible sign such as a ring or seal,
whereby he could show proof of his approval. Such caution
is hardly to be wondered at'. The envoy was likely to fall
into the hands of the enemy, and actually did so, although

Z20

THE RESTORATION

he made good his escape. If definite proof of Talleyrand’s
active treachery had then reached Napoleon it might well
have cost him his life. As it was, however, Vitrolles had
some difficulty m persuading the Allies of Talleyrand’s
adherence to the cause of the Bourbons. After he had
stated his case at a formal meeting where Metternich,
Castlereagh, Nesselrode, and Hardenberg were present, one
of the first questions asked him was concerning the attitude
of Talleyrand. ‘You can consider Monsieur de Talleyrand
entirely attached to the cause’—and then the honest man
added, ‘at least in his heart,’ whereat the grave statesmen
burst into laughter— until somewhat embarrassed he cor-
rected himself and said: ‘In his mind, if you prefer it.’

Again, when he came to discuss with the Count d ’Artois
the difficult question as to who could be entrusted with the
task of carrying on the government during the interval that
was bound to elapse between the disappearance of Napoleon
and the arrival of the Bourbons, ‘the name of M. dc Talley-
rand was the first, and indeed the only one, that suggested
itself. . . . The Prince liked to bring the conversation back
to M. de Talleyrand, whom he still called the Bishop of
Autun. They were contemporaries and, despite the repug-
nance which the renegade priest and the married bishop
inspired, he was still interested in him.’

2

While Vitrolles was discussing the future with his beloved
Prince at Nancy, the Allies were advancing rapidly on Paris;
and the position of Napoleon and of those who supported
him was growing desperate. On 28th March, at a meeting
of the Council of Regency, the question was discussed
whether the Empress and her son should seek safety or
should remainin thethreatened capital. In private Talleyrand

THE RESTORATION lai

had expressed the view that they should go, but on this
official occasion he argued strongly in the opposite sense.
There is little doubt that the advice which he gave to the
Council was right. The flight of the Empress and of the
acting Governn\ent entailed almost of necessity the
capitulation of Paris. It was, as Talleyrand observed to
Savary after the meeting, throwing away the game with
good cards in the hand. His advice, however, was re-
jected, and on the following morning the Empress left
for Blois.

When he was asked afterwards why he had given advice
which, if it had been taken, would have proved injurious
to the cause which he already secretly supported, he replied
that his credit at that time stood so low that he knew that
he had only to advise one course in order to be sure tliat the
opposite would be adopted. This was an ingenious explana-
tion of his conduct, but it is permissible to believe that in
giving it he was doing himself, as not infrequently, less than
justice. He may have doubted whether his advice would be
followed, he certainly wished no good to the Napoleonic
regime, but when required to deliver an opinion on a
question of policy, he probably preferred to give the opinion
which he really held, and which also was the wisest counsel
in the circumstances. All through the previous year when-
ever Napoleon had asked for his opinion he had given it
honestly, advising the Emperor to make the best peace he
could, although with little expectation and less desire that
such advice would be followed. Although conscience
troubled him little there exists such a thing as professional
pride, and it must have afforded him some consolation to feel
that the advice which he had given was always sound and
that those who refused to follow it were the architects of
their own misfortunes.

' Op the following day it w^s Tallhyrand’s duty, as a

ZZ2

THE RESTORATION

member of the Council of Regency, to follow the Empress.
The battle was raging now at the very gates of Paris, where
the Marshals Marmont and Mortier offered a last gallant
defence. From the heights -of Montmartre the Emperor’s
brothers, Joseph and Jerome, watched the contest, and when
they saw that all was lost rode away to join their sister-in-
law in the south. Similar action seemed indicated on the
part of the Vice-Grand' Elector of the Empire, who had,
however, no intention of taking it. The Emperor of the
French who had long distrusted and openly abused him was
in retreat, the Emperor of Russia with whom he had been
on terms of constant friendship was at the gate. This was
no time for him to leave the city in which shortly the fate of
France and of Europe was to be decided.

It might have been expected that he would have chosen .
this moment boldly to declare himself, and in the light of
subsequent events, it would have been safe to do so. But in
the beleaguered city news was scarce. The shadow of
Napoleon that hung over it, though fading hourly, was still
terrible. His whereabouts were uncertain. At any moment
he might return and take stern vengeance on those who had
betrayed him. It would be a pity, thought Talleyrand, to
lose all— perhaps life itself— on the eve of success through
taking action twenty-four hours too soon.

Therefore, with the help of the faithful Madame de
R^musat, a little stratagem was contrived. Her husband, as
an officer in the National Guard, was in command at one of
the gates of Paris and it so happened that it was at this
very gate that the Prince de Benevento presented himself in
his travelling carriage en route to join the Empress at Elois.
With great courtesy M, de R^musat expressed to the Prince
his inability to allow him to proceed. The Prince, like a
sensible man, forbore to argue with an officer who was
doubtless obeying orders, and returned immediately to his

THE RESTORATION

Z23

own house. He could say that he had endeavoured to do
his duty, but had been prevented by force.

Late that night he called on Marmont, who was about to
sign the capitulation of Paris. What was said at this inter-
view we do not know. When subsequently the defection
of Marmont and the withdrawal of his forces dealt the last
blow to the last hopes of the Imperialists there were many
among Napoleon’s supporters who attributed the Marshal’s
action to hismidnight interviewwith thePrince-of Benevento.

3

On the following morning, contrary to his custom,
Talleyrand rose early; but he had hardly completed his
elaborate toilet when Nesselrode, his old acquaintance,
arrived at the Rue St. Florentin. Later the same morning
the allied sovereigns made their formal entry into the con-
quered capital. While they solemnly proceeded through
the streets at the head of their forces, being received mostly
with silent acquiescence but meeting occasionally with a
cheer, Talleyrand and Nesselrode were busily engaged with
the drafting of a proclamation to the people of Paris. This
document which Alexander subsequently signed, having
amended it in a sense still more conciliatory to French
national sentiment, expressed the determination of the
Allies to make no terms with Napoleon Bonaparte or with
any member of his family, and added that they would respect
the integrity of France as it had existed under its legitimate
kings, and would recognise and guarantee whatever Con-
stitution the Senate, summoned for this purpose, should
decide was the best for the French people. i

Later in the day the Emperor Alexander arrived at
Talleyrand’s house, where it was arranged that he should
stay while in Paris. This decision is said to have been due

THE RESTORATION

Z24

to a rumour that the Elys^e, which had been previously
suggested, was undermined; but this was not the reason that
Alexander gave on his arrival. ‘Monsieur de Talleyrand,’
he said, ‘I have determined to stay in your house because
you have my confidence and that of my allies. We do not
wish to settle anything before we have heard you. You
know France, its needs and desires. Say what we ought to
do and we will do it.’

There is a curious parallel between the position of the
Emperor Alexander at this time and that occupied a century
later by President Wilson. Both represented enormously
powerful nations called upon for the first time to play
decisive parts in the settlement of Europe. Both had been
nurtured in liberal principles and were actuated by generous
sentiments. Vague aspirations played a larger part in their
mental equipment than practical experience. They believed
that every nation should be given the government that it
desired, and they hoped, the one by means of a Holy Alliance
and the other by a League of Nations, to secure the future
peace of the world. Both these men of brilliant attainments
seemed for a short period to dominate the world; both of
them, a few years after their moment of triumph, ended
their careers prematurely in an atmosphere of tragedy and
failure.

Alexander was genuinely anxious to ascertain the wishes
of the French people. He had no predilections in favour of
the Bourbons. He had seriously considered the possibility
of replacing Napoleon by some other successful commander
such as Bernadotte. The alternative of a regency for the
little King of Rome had not been discarded, and it was one
that might secure the support of the Emperor of Austria
if he had any ambition to see his grandson on the throne of
France. Of the great Powers England alone definitely
desired the restoration of the former dynasty, and even

THE RESTORATION 225

England would have accepted another arrangement if her
allies had insisted. All therefore depended. upon the decision
of Alexander, and at this critical moment Alexander looked
to Talleyrand for guidance, and there is no doubt that the
decision at which he arrived and to which, in spite of other
influences, he adhered, was mainly due to the advice which
Talleyrand pressed upon him. For this reason it is difiicult
to exaggerate the debt of gratitude which the Bourbons
owed to the ci-devant Bishop of Autun.

In normal times a statesman may have doubts and hesita-
tions, but when the crucial moment arrives he must know his
own mind and be prepared to force his opinion upon others.
For six long years Talleyrand had lived in doubt and
hesitation, but now at this great crisis of his own life and of
the history of France his mind was made up and Alexander
found in him the determined counsellor ever welcome to
the weak and vacillating spirit. The new order in France
and in Europe must be based, he argued, upon a principle
and that principle must be legitimacy. To the doubts
expressed by the Emperor and by Metternich as to whether
the people would accept the return of their former princes
— they had seen, they said, no evidence of any enthusiasm
for the Bourbons during their progress through France—
Talleyrand replied that the Legislative Councils appointed
by Napoleon would themselves invite the Bourbons to
return once they were convinced that such was the deter-
mination of the Allies. When other.? are uncertain it is easy
for the man with definite views to get his way. Alexander
and the others allowed themselves to be persuaded. The
decision was taken, and when Caulaincourt, formally ambas-
sador to Russia, close friend and firm admirer of Alexander,
arrived to plead the cause of Napoleon it was already too
late.

That night the allied sovereigns dined with Talleyrand

226

THE RESTORATION

and afterwards he accompanied them to the opera. On their
appearance the whole house burst into frantic cheers. The
French are certainly not less proud or patriotic than other
nations, and that they should have spontaneously applauded
the masters of foreign troops upon their native soil, standing
in the place so often occupied by their own Emperor, proves
how profound their discontent had been. Not without
reason could Talleyrand maintain that he never conspired,
except when he had the French nation as fellow-conspirators.

4

On 1st April 1814 Talleyrand found himself in a position
more powerful and more responsible than any that he had
occupied before or was ever to occupy again. The Bona-
partes had departed, the Bourbons had not arrived, and
there was only one Frenchman to whom the Allies looked
for guidance, counsel, and decision. Attention should there-
fore be given by those who wish to form a true estimate of
his value as a statesman to the actions that he took and the
policy that he pursued at this crisis of his career.

On the morning of this day he despatched his first
message to the Count d’Artois by an emissary of the latter
who had been waiting in Paris. This message^ contained an
expression of his sincere hope that the Count and those who
followed him would adopt the national colours of France,
the tricolour, which her soldiers for twenty years had covered
with glory. Unfortunately to the embittered souE of the
emigrants these colours represented not the record of
victory but the emblem of revolution, and this first effort
to reconcile the return of the old order with the continuance
of the new was indignantly rejected.

A meeting of the Senate, or rather the remains of the
Senate, for a majority of the members were not to be found.

THE RESTORATION

427

was summoned to take place the same afternoon. The Vice-
Grand Elector— the only dignitary of the Empire who was
present— naturally presided, and recommended the senators
to proceed with the construction of a Provisional Govern-
ment. Without further loss of time a Government of five
was set up, with Talleyrand at the head of it. The other
members— Dalberg, Jaucourt, Beurnonville, and Montes-
quieu — were contemptuously described by Chateaubriand as
Talleyrand’s whist four, and they certainly played but a
smkll part in the events that immediately followed.

Talleyrand’s next step was to introduce the members of
the Senate to the Emperor Alexander, a ceremony which
took place on the following day. He did not fail to point
out to the Emperor that many of these reverend senators
who bowed so low before him had themselves voted for
the execution of their last king, and he impressed upon him
the importance of having obtained the support of the
regicides for the restoration of their victim’s brother.

The‘ respect paid to the Senate, the suggestion with
regard to the tricolour seemed to men like the Baron de
Vitrolles signs of deplorable weakness if not of latent
treachery. They believed that the battle was already won,
that nothing remained but for the rightful heir to remount
the throne of his ancestors, and that, so far from any con-
cessions being necessary, the population might consider
themselves fortunate if their former misdeeds were over-
looked. They did not realise the fact that was plain to
Talleyrand, that while the civil population was Indifferent
the army was suspicious if not hostile, and that some
gesture was necessary in order to reassure so powerful a
body that had long been encouraged to consider itself j:he
most important section of the community.

The Baron de Vitrolles himself was once more in Paris,
and was given a dramatic opportunity of Appreciating how

228

THE RESTORATION

far less secure were his master’s prospects than he supposed.
He was to be the bearer of despatches from the Provisional
Government to the Count d’Artois, and at ten o’clock on the
morning of 4th April, he presented himself at the Rue St.
Florentin in order to receive his instructions. He found
Talleyrand still in bed in that bedroom on the entresol
whence all the affairs of the Provisional Government were
conducted. Sitting by his bedside Vitrolles proceeded to
draw up the complete programme of the Prince’s entry
into Paris. He was then anxious to set forth, but Talleyrand
asked him to delay his departure until later in the day as he
would have a private letter to give him.

Vitrolles found Talleyrand easy to deal with. ‘There
was this advantage with him, that no question surprised him,
and that the most unexpected ones pleased him the best. . . ,
The whole policy of the Provisional Government was the
lauser-aller and the laisser-faire of Monsieur de Talleyrand;
his genius hovered above all the intrigues and lurked behind
all the business. ... I overcame my awe of this famous
statesman; his reputation was more imposing than his
personality — he was easy to get on with; phantoms disappear
when one is close to them. It was in the simplest conversa,-
tion that Monsieur de Talleyrand let fall the remarks to
which he attached the greatest importance, they always had
an object; he sowed them carelessly, like the seed that nature
scatters, and, as in nature, the majority perished without
produce.

‘It was thus he told me, with apparent indifference, of his
last dealings with the Count d’ Artois, in 1789. He spoke
in a way which made me notice his words but with a smile
that robbed them of all pretension. “Ask Monsieur le
Comte,” he said, “if he remembers our meeting at Marly.” ’

He then recounted the facts and the circumstances of that
interview on the eve of the first emigration, which was, as

THE RESTORATION 229

Vitrolles himself realised, ‘the complete justification in a
few words of his conduct during the Revolution.’ The story
as told by Talleyrand was confirmed in every particular by
d’Artois.

All that day Vitrolles waited. He was prepared to start in
the afternoon, but was put oflF until the evening. At eight
o’clock he was sitting with Talleyrand, who was about to
put the private letter into his hands, when he heard the
door open behind him and the sound of spurred heels on
the parquet floor. It was an aide-de-camp from Prince
Schwarzenberg— the commander-in-chief of the allied
forces— with the news that the Marshals Ney and Macdonald,
accompanied by the Duke of Vicenza (Caulaincourt), were
at the outposts asking for an interview with the Emperor
of Russia and bearing proposals from Napoleon.

‘Prince Talleyrand immediately put back into his largest
pocket the letter destined for the Count d’Artois; and
taking my arm led me into the recess of the window.

‘ “This is an incident,’’ he said, laying stress upon the
word to convey that it was serious; “we must see how this
turns out; you cannot leave at this moment. ‘The Emperor
Alexander is capable of the unexpected; one is not the son
of Paul I for nothing.’’ ’

The honest Vitrolles having awaited the arrival of the
envoys until midnight went home to bed and slept soundly,
but Talleyrand stayed up all that night, and when Vitrolles
returned at seven o’clock next morning he learnt that the
Prince had just retired and that his departure had to be
deferred until later. While Vitrolles had slept the last card
had been played on behalf of Napoleon and it was due to the
vigilance of Talleyrand that it was played in vain.

Ever since the arrival of the Allies Caulaincourt had
worked tirelessly in the interests of his master. He had had
several interviews with Alexander, with his brother the

Z 30 THE RESTORATION

Grand Duke Constantine, with Schwarzenberg, and with
others. He had haunted the Rue St. Florentin, had threat-
ened to plead his cause before the Senate, had argued and
remonstrated with Talleyrand, and had nearly thrown the
Ahhi de Pradt out of the window. What he had finally
to offer was Napoleon’s abdication on condition that his son
should be recognised and a regency established.

Alexander had great affection and respect for Caulain-
court, who urged his case with eloquence and sincerity. This
was the only solution, he believed, which could be imposed
upon France without further bloodshed, for the army, he
maintained, was faithful to Napoleon; it was also the
solution desired by the majority of the population in whose
internal affairs Alexander had expressed his unwillingness
to intervene. Caulaincourt did not know that even while
he was speaking the army of Marmont, that lay between
Paris and Fontainebleau, was being transferred to Versailles,
in accordance with an undertaking that Marmont had given
to the Allies, but contrary 'to an order that he had given that
same night to delay any action pending the result of these
negotiations.

Alexander hesitated. He Was impressed by Caulain-
court’s arguments. He remembered his old admiration for
Napoleon and had no desire to appear ungenerous in the
moment of victory. When he was on the point of yielding
he came to Talleyrand for advice. He found in Talleyrand
no reflection of his own uncertainty. With overwhelming
arguments and with irresistible logic the impression which
the emissaries of Napoleon had produced on him was
effaced. Whatever regency was set up, Talleyrand pointed
out, Napoleon would in reality be the power behind it,
within a year' he would be once more openly in control, the
army would be once more in the field, and all that had been
accomplished would be undone. The opinion of Talleyrand

THE RESTORATION 231

at this juncture proved decisive. The doubts of Alexander
were dispelled and Caulaincourt returned to Fontainebleau
empty-handed.

S

So Vitrolles set ou,t for Nancy at last with Talleyrand’s
letter in his pocket, and with the conviction in his heart
that Talleyrand shared his views with regard to restoring
the old monarchy on the old basis. Talleyrand had allowed
him to depart under this impression, but it was in fact no
part of his plan that Louis xviii should simply succeed by
right of inheritance to the same throne that Louis xvi had
lost. Before the King there was to come the Constitution—
and so Lebrun, former Arch Treasurer and former Third
Consul, had already been instructed to prepare a draft.
What he produced was practically the Constitution of 1791,
which Talleyrand handed over to the Senate for improve-
ment and revision, insisting only upon the substitution of
two Chambers for one. At the same time he reminded them'
that the new King would probably prove as good a judge of
a Constitution as any of them, that he had in the old days of
the constituent Assembly been noted for his liberal senti-
ments, and that his long sojourn in England had provided
him with the opportunity for further study of free institutions.

On 6 th April the new Constitution was passed unanim-
ously, and Talleyrand christened it the Charter, by which
name it was henceforward to be known. The second article
rdad as follows: ‘The French people freely call to the
throne of France Louis-Stanilas-Xavier of France, brother
of the last King— and after him the other members of the
House of Bourbbn in the old order.’

When Vitrolles read the terms of the Charter, which
reached him under cover of a letter, signed by Talleyrand
and other members of the Government, he considered it a

332 THE RESTORATION

calamity. He was already on his return journey to Paris
together with the Count d’Artois, but he now hurried on in
advance in order if possible to undo the work that had been
accomplished in his absence.

Talleyrand received him with his usual urbanity and
lightheartedly assented to the suggestion that the Senate
should be requested to register the letters patent which
appointed the Count d’Artois Lieutenant-General of the
country. Vitrolles breathed again, believing he had gained
a great point for the principle of absolute monarchy. A few
minutes later, however, Talleyrand, who had in the mean-
while been talking to another visitor, returned to Vitrolles
with the remark : ‘Oh, by the way. His Highness’s letters
patent cannot be recognised by the Senate’— and he went
on to explain that the King must first accept and take the
oath to the Constitution. What then, objected Vitrolles,
was to be the Prince’s position The King would not arrive
for a fortnight and meanwhile it was unthinkable that his
brother should occupy any subordinate post. Talleyrand'
eventually solved the problem by the suggestion that he
should himself resign from being president of the Provisional
Government and that the Prince should take his place.
With this Vitrolles had to content himself, and returned
once more to his master.

loth April was Easter Day. A solemn Te Deum was
celebrated in the former Place de la Revolution according to
the rites of the Orthodox Church. Talleyrand could watch
it from his windows. That day the Emperor of Russia
dined with him, together with the Duchess of Courland and
her daughter, Dorothea de P^rigord. On the I2th the
Count d'Artois made his entry into Paris, and Talleyrand
was one of those who greeted him on the outskirts of the
city. On the 14th the Count was compelled to receive with
none too good a grace the post of Lieutenant-General of

THE RESTORATION

233

the Kingdom from the hands of the Senate. Talleyrand was
their spokesman, and the Prince in replying to him said
that, while he felt certain that his brother would accept the
principle of the Constitution, there were, no doubt, certain
alterations that could be necessary.

The King himselfj who had been detained in England by
an unusually severe attack of gout, landed at Calais on 24th
April, and was met by Talleyrand at Compihgne. Louis
was fifty-eight and an old man for his age. Enormously
fat, his unwieldy bulk did not rob his appearance of dignity,
which was due to a profound self-confidence and complete
absence of doubt as to the sanctity of his claims and the
inviolability of his position. Thus he was able throughout
his life to meet all the vicissitudes of fortune with unrufiled
serenity. A sound intelligence fortified by wide reading,
especially of the classics, enabled him to find the appropriate
words upon 'most occasions: T am pleased to see you,’ he
greeted Talleyrand. ‘Our houses date from the same epoch.
My ancestors were the cleverer; had yours been, you would
say to me to-day : “Take a chair, draw it up, let us talk of
our affairs.” To-day it is I who say to you: “Be seated, let
us converse.” ’

With these friendly and flattering words, which were
much appreciated and recorded with pride by the hearer,
Louis concealed his distrust and his determination that
Talleyrand should have as little as possible to do with the
internal affairs of the kingdom.

At Saint Ouen, on the eve of the royal entry into the
capital, it was Talleyrand who presented the members of the
Senate to the returned monarch. The concluding words of
his address were as follows: ‘The nation and the Senate,
full of confidence in the enlightened and magnanirnous
sentiments of Your Majesty, share your desire that France
should be free in order that her King may be powerful.’

THE RESTORATION

334

The King’s reply left little doubt as to tlve attitude he
intended to adopt. He was not opposed to constitutional
government. He was, in "fact, far more broadminded on the
subject that the majority of his supporters. But he was
determined that the Constitution should be granted as an act
of grace from the Throne, and should not be insisted upon
as a right of the people and a condition of his accession.
This was Talleyrand’s last official act as a member of the
Provisional Government.

What should be the verdict of history on the important
and decisive part that he had played during the event-
ful days between the end of March and the beginning
of May? In the first place he had had a policy when all the
other principal actors were without one; in the second place
he had so contrived that his policy prevailed; and in the
third place it must be generally admitted— Napoleon
admitted it himself— that no other policy could at that
juncture have been better calculated to promote the restora-
tion of order and peace.

The suggestion that the national colours should be
adopted, the insistence upon the importance of the Senate,
the haste with wliich a Constitution was produced — the
work of months compressed into two days— the substitution
of two Chambers for one, the bestowal of the name ‘the
Charter,’ the reluctance to receive the King’s brother as
Lieutenant-General before the acceptance of the Charter-
all point to Talleyrand’s desire to reconcile the restored
monarchy with the Empire and the Revolution, and to
achieve this purpose if possible by 'a Constitution on the
English model. Moderation, reconciliation, and constitu-
tional monarchy, these, as ever, were the principles to which
Talleyrand was attached and for which he Was prepared to
work when circumstances permitted. He was not one who
would die for his principles, nor even suffer serious incon-

THE RESTORATION

235

venience on their account, but he held to them with
singular tenacity and was faithful to them— in his fashion,

Guizot has said that the Restoration was a victory for the
English constitution over the model of 1791. We have
seen how it was the English constitution which Talleyrand
preferred in 1789, twenty-five years before, and it was the
same to which he was to adhere in 1830, sixteen years
afterwards.

6

In the new Government set up by the restored monarchy
Talleyrand was appointed to the post of Minister for Foreign
Affairs. Once more he took charge of the department which
he had administered under the Directory, the Consulate, and
the Empire. 1

His first task was one which no diplomatist could envy.
France was still in a state of war with the Allies. He had
therefore to conclude first an armistice and then a peace
with the victorious Powers whose troops were distributed
in various parts of the kingdom and whose sovereigns were
firmly established in the capital. Talleyrand has been
unjustly criticised by his compatriots for the nature of the
treaty which, in these circumstances, he concluded. An
unprejudiced observer is, however, more likely to be sur-
prised by the generosity than by the sp'erity of the terms
which he succeeded in extracting from the Allies. They
were in a position to dictate whatever conditions they desired.
If Napoleon, who was still the greatest captain of the age
and whose name still kindled enthusiasm in the army, was
unable to put a force into the field or to strike another blow,
what hope had Talleyrand, without an army or a following,
of offering any effective resistance to the demands presented
to him? In such a situation only two courses were open,
either to obtain by negotiation the^ best terms possible

THE RESTORATION

236

and to accept them with a good grace or eke to refuse to
treat and sullenly to make plain that whatever sktleinent
was arrive^ at was dictated by force. Talleyrand adopted
tlie former alternative and abundantly justified his conduct
by the argument that it was of' the first importance at that
moment for the future Government of France to obtain
the confidence and the good will of Europe.

When it is remembered that for twenty years the great
Powers had, with brief intervals, been at war with France,
and that she had inflicted immense damage on the interests
of England and Russia, and had subjected Austria and
Prussia to the deepest humiliation, it can hardly be con-
tended that the terms of the treaty were harsh which left
France, now completely defeated, with more extended
territory than she possessed before the war began, which
allowed her to retain the invaluable works of art wliich her
victorious troops had rifled from the galleries of Europe,
and which exacted no indemnity for all the losses suffered
by other nations. That France had to surrender her con-
quests in the Low Countries and in Holland, that she had
to withdraw from Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, and that
England retained the colonial possessions that she had
captured, can hardly be considered surprising, especially
when it is remembered that the inclusion within France of
Avignon and Montb^liard, of Annecy and Chambdry,
which had not formed part of the ancient kingdom, was
recognised, and tliat the troops which were occupying Paris
were withdrawn forthwith. There is no place for defeat in
the philosophy of chauvinism. Although the latter word
had not been coined in the days of the first Napoleon the
spirit existed, and to that spirit it had seemed only right and
proper that the whole of Europe should serve as the foot-
stool of France. Now, when the tide of victory had turned,
patriots of that kidney could only explain facts by alleging

-THE RESTORATION

337

treachery— and when the peace was signed by a politician
with so equivocal a past, it was not unnatural that he should
be suspected of having sold his country, The jingo nation-
alist is always the first to denounce his fellow countrymen as
traitors.

But Talleyrand was not ashamed of his work. He had
never set great store by public opinion and he could afford
now to despise the views of'those who thought that they
might retain the conquests at the price of having disowned
the conqueror. He had never cared about those conquests,
and had always foreseen in them a source of weakness rather
than of strength. He could therefore surrender without a
qualm possessions that he had not coveted. Caring chiefly
for the welfare of France he made the best terms that he
could for his country, and, accepting them cheerfully, he
laid the foundation of confidence in the new Government
and prepared the way for the greater task that he had yet
to perform at the Congress which was to settle the affairs of
Europe.

Chapter Tea

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

I

The distrust with which Talleyrand was regarded by the
more fervid supporters of the restored monarchy is not
surprising,- but the decision to confine his activities to
foreign affairs was one of the first, and not one of the least,
of the mistakes that Louis xviii committed. Count Ferrand,
one of the more reactionary of the new Ministers, who was
known at one time as ‘the white Marat,’ was not slow to
realise that Talleyrand was the most dangerous opponent of
the ideas which he represented. Typical of the Royalist
mentality was the importance attached by Ferrand and others
to inducing the King to affix to all his proclamations the
words ‘in the nineteenth year of our reign.’ Talleyrand
fought against the phrase and succeeded in eliminating it
from the proclamation of Saint Ouen, but it appeared in
the Charter. He knew the minds of his fellow-countrymen
which he had been studying all his life. They were willing
now to be rid of Napoleon, but they still looked back with
pride, if without regret, upon the epoch of glory, and they
were loth to pretend that during the days when the eagles
and the tricolour swept invincibly over Europe the fat
old gentleman at Hartwell had really been the King of
France. ^

Talleyrand was allowed no hand in the final drafting of
the Charter, and his protests against the limitations imposed
upon the freedom of the press went unheeded. In this

238

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 239

matter, as in every other where he took any part, he foresaw
and sought to remove the causes which were to prove fatal
to the Restoration.

Nobody understood more clearly the errors that were
being committed, nobody deplored more sincerely the
reactionary and undemocratic tendencies of the dme, than
the liberal-minded autocrat who was so largely responsible
for restoring the monarchy. Alexander blamed Talleyrand.
He himself had always doubted the wisdom of bringing
back the Bourbons, he had thought of establishing a new
dynasty, he had been willing to contemplate a republic. It
was Talleyrand who had over-persuaded him; it was Talley-
rand who had insisted on the Bourbons as the only satis-
factory solution; and already the Liberals of Paris, known
and respected by Alexander, were coming to him with com-
plaints and reproaches. Impulsive and volatile, the Emperor
was swift to turn against the man whose advice he blamed
himself for accepting, and when, with the King of Piussia,
he left Paris for the triumphant visit to London he did not
even take leave of one who in the days of crisis had been his
most trusted counsellor and his host.

In a letter which Talleyrand addressed to the Emperor
after his departure he deplored the coolness which had
arisen between them and defen4ed the policy which he had
advocated. ‘Liberal principles are in accordance with the
spirit of the age, they cannot be avoided; and, if Your
Majesty will take my word for it, I can promise ‘you that
we shall have monarchy combined with liberty; that you
will see men of real merit welcomed and given office. ... I
admit, Sir, that you have met many discontented people in
Paris, but what is Paris after all ? The provinces, they are the
real France— and it is there that the return of the House of
Bourbon is blessed and that your happy victory is pro-
claimed.’ The Emperor did not apparently reply to this

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

240

letter, and events at the Congress of Vienna were destined
still further. to widen tire breach.

While the victorious monarchs were being feasted and
fSted in London, Talleyrand set himself to the serious task
of determining his policy and drafting his instructions for
the coming Congress. ‘The r6le of France,’ he writes in his
memoirs, ‘was singularly difficult. It was very tempting and
very easy for the Governments which had so long been
hostile to keep her excluded from the major questions
affecting Europe. By the Treaty of Paris France had escaped
destruction, but she had not regained the position that she
ought to occupy in the general political system. Trained
eyes could easily detect in several of the principal plenipo-
tentiaries the secret desire to reduce France to a secondary
rfile.’

The first task, therefore, to be accomplished at Vienna
was the re-establishment beyond all doubt or question of
France’s position as one of the great Powers of the world.
In order to make certain of achieving this purpose ‘it was
necessary above all,’ to employ once more Talleyrand’s .own
words, ‘that the French representative should understand,
and should make it understood, that France wanted nothing
more than she possessed, that she had sincerely repudiated
the heritage of conquest, that she considered herself strong
enough within her ancient frontiers, that she had no thought
of extending them, and, finally, that she now took pride in
her moderation’ {elk flafait aujoiird’hui sa gloire dans sa
modiration).'

Convinced of the importance of these general principles
he proceeded to draw up written instructions for his own
guidance. This document has rightly attained some degree

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

2i\.l

of celebrity. If ever a text-book is compiled for the education
of diplomatists these instructions should find prominent
place in it. No better model could be found of concision
and perspicuity. In some thirty pages of print is contained
a complete introduction to all the European problems of
the day, and a lucid indication of the policy to be pursued
with regard to each of them by the French plenipotentiary
at the Congress.

For more than twenty years Europe had been at war.
During that time there had been many changes, both as
regards the causes for which the nations were fighting and
the sides upon which they fought. The enemies of one year
had become the allies of the next, and alliances so rapidly
formed had been dissolved with equal rapidity. Territories
had changed hands, dynasties had been overthrown, new
monarchs had been set up, old ones had been sent into exile,
new kingdoms had been called into existence, frontiers that
had held good for centuries had disappeared. Changes more
remarkable than magic had succeeded one another with
bewildering celerity, but now the wand of the magician
was broken, the fabric that he had created was in pieces, and
it was the arduous duty of ordinary men to reassemble the
parts.

‘The first question to decide,’ wrote Talleyrand, 'is
who, that is to say, what states, shall take part in the Con-
gress, and the next is to settle the various subjects with
which they must deal. Then comes the question of the
manner and method of procedure, the order in which these
matters shall receive attention, the form to be given to the
decisions arrived at, and the way in which such decisions
shall be enforced.’ To all these questions the answer is
returned, plain and decisive. Wherever doubt arises it is
solved by application of the principle of legitimacy. This
principle is to serve as a guide and a test in every difficulty.

j42 the congress OF VIENNA

Having dealt briefly with every question that will demand
attention, from the future equilibrium of Europe to the
slave trade, and having briefly indicated his policy with
regard to each, he finally reduces the main interests of
France to four, and thus enumerates them in order of
importance :

(1) That Austria shall be prevented from making one

of her princes King of Sardinia.

(2) That Naples shall be restored to its former ruler.

(3) That the whole of Poland shall not pass to Russia.

(4) That Prussia shall not acquire the whole of Saxony.

■ Talleyrand was successful in maintaining the French
point of view with regard to each of these four questions.
The last two were to prove the most difficult and to come
nearest to destroying the harmony of the Congress.

Talleyrand had always held the view that the partition
of Poland had been a crime and that its reconstruction was
desirable. That belief he re-affirms in the Vienna instruc-
tions. ‘The re-establishmcnt of the Kingdom of Poland
would be a benefit and a very great benefit; but only on the
three following conditions;

(1) That it should be independent.

(2) That it should have a strong Constitution.

(3) That it should not be necessary to compensate

Prussia and Austria for the parts they would lose. ’

All these conditions were, at the time, impossible of
fulfilment. Having shown that this is the case Talleyrand'
reluctantly concludes that the continuation of the arrange-
ment existing before the war, that is to say, of the partition,
is the best solution. But it will be only temporary. ‘By

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

243

remaining partitioned Poland will not be destroyed for ever.
The Poles although not forming a political entity will
always form a family. They will no longer have a common
country, but they will have a common language. They
will, therefore, remain united by the strongest and most
lasting of all bonds. They will, under foreign domination,
reach the age of manhood which they have not achieved
in nine centuries of independence, and the moment when
they reach it will not be far distant from the moment when,
having won their freedom, they will all rally round one
centre.’

The vision was clear, the words were prophetic, and the
future that he foresaw was accomplished in a hundred years.

3

Having thus prepared his own instructions, nothing
remained but to select his companions. Three other pleni-
potentiaries- were appointed — the Duke of Dalberg, of
German origin, who had been closely associated with
Talleyrand in all the intrigues and diplomacy connected
with the restoration;' Alexis de Noailles, an aide-de-camp
of the Count d’ Artois; and the Marquis de la Tour du Pin,
whom we have seen in exile in America and as a prefect of
Napoleon. In selecting these assistants Talleyrand was
thinking more of Paris than of Vienna. So far as the real
work of the Congress was concerned he relied upon him-
self and upon the able assistance of La BesnardiSre, a
permanent official of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The
others were to act as links with Paris, not only to keep him
informed of the intrigues that were going on there but also
—especially in the case of Alexis de Noailles— to act as the
informant of the extreme Royalists and to report to his
enemies what Talleyrand wished them to learn.

244 THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

In Paris he left as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs
his old friend Jaucourt, with whom he had been intimate
before the Revolution, who had made one of the society at
Juniper Hall, and who had now for long been married to
that Madame de la Chatre who had, even then, been the
object of his affections. Talleyrand could rely upon him
implicitly both to carry out the policy he desired and to
keep him informed of all developments.

There remained one other not unimportant member of
the French Mission to Vienna for whose presence Talley-
rand in his memoirs accounts as follows :

‘It also seemed to me important,’ he writes, ‘to dispel
the prejudices which France of the Empire had aroused in
the high and influential society of Vienna. To do so it was
necessary to make the French embassy as agreeable as
possible, and I therefore asked my niece, Madame la
Comtesse Edmond de Pdrigord, to be good enough to
accompany me and to do the honours of my house. Her
tact and superior intelligence enabled her to attract and
please people, and she was very useful to me.’

Thus began a relationship which was to continue for the
remainder of Talleyrand’s life. He was sixty, she was
twenty-one. A woman of great beauty, distinction, and
charm, highly educated and of semi-royal birth, she devoted
the twenty-four most important years of her life to the man
who was her husband’s uncle and had been her mother’s
lover.

Before he left Paris Talleyrand had an interview with
Castlereagh, who was also on his way to the Congress. This
exchange of views was eminently satisfactory to both.
Talleyrand was again striving, as he had ever striven, and
as he was to strive to the end, for a better understanding
between France and England. So eager were his expressions
of good will that Castlereagh reported that he found if

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 245

necessary ‘rather to repress the exuberance of this senti-
ment and to prevent its assuming a shape which, by exciting
jealousy in other states, might impair our respective means
of being really useful.’

The one interest which the two men had in common, and
which was to enable them to work harmoniously together,
was a genuine desire to establish the peace of Europe upon a
lasting basis.

4

The Congress that assembled at Vienna in the autumn of
1814 attracted to that city all that was most brilliant in
Europe. Not only did the leading statesmen of every
country attend, but in most xases the reigning princes
accompanied them. It was calculated that the royal palace
served as lodging at one moment to two emperors and as
many empresses, four kings, one queen, two heirs to thrones,
two grand-duchesses, and three princes. Minor royalties
were more numerous. The courtiers followed in the train
of their sovereigns. The flower of European nobility, the
richest, the most distinguished, the most beautiful, all who
played any part either in the political or in the social sphere
flocked to Vienna. The majority were not there for work.
They never had worked and never meant to. The eighteenth-
century tradition of pleasure still lingered. It was strangely
appropriate that the octogenarian Prince de Eigne, the very
soul of the eighteenth century, should have come there and
been much in evidence, that he should have made the jest
about the Congress that is best remembered; 'Le Congrb ne
marche fas, mats il danse,' that he himself should have
danced there and made love, arranging midnight rendezvous
to the last, and that in the midst of all that frivolity he should
have died before the Congress dispersed. When his end was
near he remarked with a smile that he was glad to be pro-

246 THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

viding the Congress with yet another spectacle, the funeral
of a Field-Marshal and Knight of the Golden Fleece.

There was an endless series of balls and banquets, hunts,
shooting-parties, and musical rides. There were theatrical
performances, some given by the most celebrated pro-
fessionals of Europe, others performed by aristocratic
amateurs. There was a medieval tournament in which these
paladins of the nineteenth century aped the customs of their
ancestors, contending in armour for their ladies’ favours,
and acquitting themselves so ably that one prince was carried
unconscious from the lists. Masked entertainments were
frequent, and glamour was lent to them by the knowledge
that any mysterious stranger might be the ruler of a vast
kingdom, that any domino 'might conceal a queen. The
English Ambassador, a half-brother of Lord Castlereagh,
who made himself slightly ridiculous by his ostentation,
attempted a fancy dress ball, in which everybody was to
appear in Elizabethan costume. This was a failure, as only
the English dressed up. More successful on grounds of
originality was tlie effort of Sir Sidney Smith, the hero of
Acre, who told such tedious stories that the Prince de
Ligne called him Long Acre. He organised what the
foreigners believed to be a picnic but which^would have been
more accurately described as a subscription dinner and
dance. After the dinner Sir Sidney delivered a lengthy
speech which, to those unaccustomed to English manners
seemed a novel and amusing departure, and the profits
of the evening were devoted to the benevolent purpose
of emancipating Christian prisoners in Algeria. It was
altogether a very English entertainment,

Among the many who came to Vienna on this occasion
for no better reason than that it was the fashion to do^ so
was the Count de la Garde-Chambonas, who wrote a com-
plete volume devoted solely to the social side of the Con-

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 247 ■

gress. He went everywhere, met everybody of importance,
and it is thus that he describes his first visit to the French
Embassy; ‘It is a memorable thing in a man’s life to be able
to approach closely to an actor who hag played a principal
part on the world’s stage. ... I reached the embassy early.
There was nobody there except M. de Talleyrand, the Duke
of Dalberg, and Madame Edmond de Perigord. The Prince
bade me welcome with the exquisite grace that had become
a second nature to him, and taking hold of my hand with the
kindliness reminiscent of a bygone period, he said; “I had
to come to Vienna, Monsieur, in order to have the pleasure
of seeing you at my home.”

‘I had not seen him since 1806, but I was struck once
more with the intellectual sublimity of the look, the imper-
turbable calm of the features, the demeanour of the pre-
eminent man whom I, in common with all those for-
gathered in Vienna, considered the foremost diplomatist
of his time. There were also the same grave and deep tone
of voice, the same easy and natural manners, the same in-
grained familiarity with the usages of the best society, a
belated reflection, as it were, of a state of things which
existed no longer, and of which one beheld in him one of the
last representadves. He seemed to dominate that illustrious
assembly by the charm of his mind and the ascendancy of
his genius.’

On another occasion the sarne chronicler was present at
the Prince’s levde. It was 4 iis sixty-first birthday, and
several admirers were assembled in his bedroom at the
moment when his head emerged from between the heavy
curtains of the bed. ‘Wrapped in a plaited and goffered
muslin peignoir, the Prince proceeded to attend to his
luxuriant hair which he surrendered to two hairdressers
who, after a great deal of brandishing of arms and combs,
ended by producing the ensemble of wavy hair with which

• 248 THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

everybody is familiar.' Then came the barber's turn, dis-
pensing at the end a cloud of powder; the head and the
hands being finished they proceeded to the toilet of the feet,
a somewhat less recreative detail, considering the by no means
pleasant smell of the Barege water employed to strengthen
his lame leg. 'When all the ablutions of water and perfume
were terminated his head servant, whose only function
consisted of superintending the whole, came forward to tie
his stock into a very smart knot. I am bound to say that all
these transformations were carried out with the ease of a
grand seigneur and a nonchalance never overstepping the
good form which only permitted us to see the man without
having to trouble about his metamorphosis.

‘At table M. de Talleyrand not only showed his natural
grace and urbanity but he was in reality more amiable than
in his reception-rooms. It was no longer that habitual
silence which, as has been said, he had transformed into
the art of eloquence just as he had transformed his experience
into a kind of divination. Though less profound his talk
was perhaps all the more charming. It came straight from
the heart and flowed without restraint.’

5

Although the chief concern of the Congress appeared to
be the search for amusement, business was in fact being
transacted, and in six months a great deal was done. Talley-
rand had arrived on 23 rd September, and had soon dis-
covered that although the official opening of the Congress
was due to take place on ist October the representatives of
the four great Powers, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and England,
had already been in conference together. The exclusion of
France from these counsels was exactly as Talleyrand had
foreseen and exactly what he was determined to prevent, and

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

249

he lost no time in stirring up the resentment of the smaller
nations and assuring them of his support. France alone the
great Powers might afford to ignore, but France at the head
of the rest of Europe became at once a formidable antagonist.

Talleyrand was careful not to complain, or to humble
himself by craving admittance, but he allowed the line he was
adopting to become known, with the result that on 30th
September he received an invitation from Metternich to
attend a private conference in the afternoon. A similar
invitation was addressed to the Spanish representative with
whom Talleyrand had been collaborating.

Talleyrand arrived punctually but the others were already
there. Castlereagh, at the head of the table, appeared to be
presiding. There was a vacant chair between him and
Metternich which Talleyrand occupied. He immediately
inquired why he had been summoned alone and not with
the other French plenipotentiaries. Because it was thought
best at the preliminary conferences to have present only the
heads of Missions. Then why was the Spaniard, Labrador,
there who was not head of his Mission ? Because the head
of the Spanish Mission had not yet arrived in Vienna. But
why was Prussia represented by Humboldt as well as
Hardenberg.? Because of Prince Hardenberg’s infirmity.
(He was almost stone deaf.) ‘Oh, if it’s a question of in-
firmities we can all have our own, and make the most of
them.’ They would raise no objection in future, they as-
sured him, to two representatives attending from each
Mission. Talleyrand had won his first point— a small one—
but in the art of diplomacy, as in the art of war, details are
of importance, and every foothold gained contributes to-
wards the desired position of superiority.

Castlereagh then read a letter from the representative of
Portugal demanding the reason of his exclusion from a
conference where the representatives of France and Spain

250

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

v,'’ere admitted. His case was a strong one; Talleyrand and
Labrador supported him; a decision was postponed until the
next meeting.

‘The object of to-day’s conference/ said Castlercagh, ‘is
to acquaint you with what the four Powers have done since
we have been here,’ and turning to Metternich he asked him
for the protocol. It was handed to Talleyrand who, casting
one glance at it, immediately pounced upon the word
‘allies.’

It compelled him to ask, he said, where they were. Were
they still at Chaumont, or at Laon.? Had not peace been
made .f* If they were still at war, whom was it against ? Not
Napoleon, he was at Elba; surely not against the King of
France— he was the guarantee of the duration of peace.
'Let us speak frankly, gentlemen; if there are .still any
“allied powers’’ this is no place for me.’ .

The other Ministers found little to say in reply. They
disclaimed any sinister motive in making use of the peccant
word which they had employed only for convenience and
brevity. ‘Brevity,’ retorted Talleyrand, ‘should not be pur-
chased at the price of accuracy,’ and returned once more to
the study of the protocol. Presently he laid it down with the
words: ‘I don’t understand,’ and then picking it up again
pretended to be making a great effort to follow the sense of
it. ‘I still don’t understand,’ he finally exclaimed; ‘for me
there are two dates and between them there is nothing— the
30th of May when it was agreed to hold the Congress, and
the 1st of October when the Congress is to open. Nothing
that has taken place in the interval exists so far as I am
concerned.’

Once" more the other Ministers accepted defeat. They
attached, they said, little importance to this document and
were prepared to withdraw it. It was accordingly withdrawn
and no more was heard of it.

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

251

A more important document was then produced which
explained the decision arrived at by the Powers and the
policy which they wished to pursue. It was suggested that
all' the subjects to be dealt with by the Congress should be
divided into two categories, that each category should be
handed over to one of two committees, and that not until
these committees had finished their work should the full
Congress be opened. The real object of this proposal was
to leave in the hands of the great Powers the settlement of all
the more important questions. Talleyrand saw at once the
danger. So long as the former Allies worked in harmony
he and his Spanish colleague would be in a minority of two
to four and all their wishes would be overruled. He therefore
said that the proposal was an entirely new one and that he
must have time to consider it. To settle everything before
opening the Congress seemed to him to be putting at the
end what ought to come at the beginning. He received
some support from Castlereagh, and the discussion then
became general without any decision being reached.

Somebody mentioned the King of Naples, meaning
Murat. ‘Of what King of Naples are you speaking?’
Talleyrand coolly inquired, and added, ‘We do not know
the man in question.’ The effrontery of such a question and*
such a statement coming from one who had been for years
in the service of Napoleon must have staggered even the
trained diplomatists gathered round that table. Yet it was
part of the. supreme irony of the situation that there was not
one of them except the representative of England who was
in a position to remind Talleyrand of his past. The Prussian
could not forget that his master had once humbly thanked
Napoleon for leaving him a fragment of his kingdom, the
Russian had been a witness of the adulation with which his
‘master had overwhelmed Napoleon at Tilsit, the Austrian
had been proud to conduct his master’s daughter to

252 the congress of VIENNA

Napoleon’s bed. Who were they to question the orthodoxy
of one who represented His Most Christian Majesty, who
alone of all the monarchs had never even treated with the
usurper.’’ On another occasion when the Emperor Alex-
ander, referring to the King of Saxony, spoke bitterly of
‘those who have betrayed the cause of Europe,’ Talleyrand
replied with justice, ‘that. Sire, is a question of dates.’

6

The result of the attitude adopted by Talleyrand at this
first conference was to affect profoundly all future develop-
ments. Gentz, who had been present ^s secretary, entered
in his diary: ‘The intervention of Talleyrand and Labrador
has hopelessly upset all our plans. They protested against
the procedure we have adopted and soundly rated us for
two hours. It was a scene that I shall never forget.’’ When
it is remembered that those who submitted to such treat-
ment were the representatives of the four dominant Powers
of the world whose troops had lately occupied Paris and
were shortly to occupy it again, some estimate can be
formed of the magnitude of Talleyrand’s achievement.

• Here it is not proposed to follow step by step the diplo-
matic manoeuvres of the next three months. With the
smaller nations at his back Talleyrand had succeeded on ist
October in getting, as it were, his foot into the door of the
European council chamber. From that position he never
withdrew, and very soon those who were already ensconced
there were glad enough that he should come in and shut the
door behind him, leaving his former supporters in the
passage. He appeared to have failed in his first endeavour
to secure a Congress of all the plenipotentiaries, but he had
in reality won his own admission Into the select conclave
which consisted in future of five instead of four.

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 253

Once having established his position in that small and
omnipotent society his next move vras to destroy its soli-
darity and by dividing it into' two halves to ensure that his
own adhesion would give superiority to either half. Thus
from being the representative of the one Power whom all
Europe had united to conquer he became at a turn of the
wheel the determining factor in the future settlement.

It was only a few days after the conference described in
detail above that he found himself closeted with Metternich
and casually made use of the word ‘allies’ in conversation.
Metternich remembered his lesson: ‘Don’t speak of allies,’
he said, ‘they no longer exist.’ ‘There are people here,’
replied Talleyrand, ‘who ought to be allies in the sense that
they ought to think in the same way and desire the same
things. How have you the courage to put Russia like a belt
round your principal and most important possessions,
Hungary and Bohemia ? How can you allow all the patrimony
of an old and good neighbour (the King of Saxony) to be given
to your natural enemy (Prussia) .^’

In these words Talleyrand raised what were to prove the
two thorniest questions of the Congress, and were narrowly
to avoid bringing about a renewal of war. Alexander wished
to create for himself a kingdom out of the whole of Poland;
Prussia hoped to swallow up the whole of Saxony as a
punishment to its king for his fidelity to Napoleon. Austria
was naturally opposed to the aggrandisement on these lines
of her two neighbours, and Castlereagh, more clear-sighted
than Parliament or his own Cabinet, who were inclined to
think that these matters did not concern England, foresaw
that such a settlement would not conduce to the permanent
peace of Europe. He was, however, not so strongly opposed
at first to the satisfaction of Prussia’s ambition because he
still harboured resentment against so good an ally of
Napoleon as the King of Saxony had been, and he was

254 the congress OF VIENNA

affected by the argument that a powerful Prussia would act
as an effective barrier against Russia. Talleyrand was at
some pains to dispose of this argument in a memorandum
which he wrote and published on the question of Saxony.
He pointed out that the rulers of Russia and Prussia were
on such intimate terms that they had nothing to fear from
one another. It was therefore far more probable that Prussia
would rely upon Russian support in furthering her schemes
in Germany while Russia would be assisted by the good will
of Prussia in pursuing her attacks on the Ottoman Empire,
This prophecy was fulfilled. The good relations then exist-
ing between the rulers of the two countries were maintained
by their descendants to their mutual benefit and it was not
until the end of the century that this understanding was
destroyed. In October 1814 Talleyrand wrote that if
Prussia got her way ‘she would in a few years form a
militarist monarchy that would be very dangerous for her
neighbours.’

During the remainder of the year, while the carnival of
Vienna continued with unabated gaiety, relations between
the principal Powers grew steadily worse. It had at first
been the custom for the Ministers to meet in the morning
and the Sovereigns in the afternoon, but as the tension
increased the Sovereigns, less accustomed to concealing
their sentiments, found it impossible to bear each other’s
company so often. Each side was intriguing to strengthen
their position. Talleyrand and Metternich thought they
had won the King of Prussia but Alexander asked him to
dinner and .their work was undone. Alexander made ad-
vances to Talleyrand at a ball at Count Zichy’s, pressed his
arm amicably, begged him to call on him and to come with-
out ceremony. (^En frac, de reprendre avec lui mes habitudes
de Jrac') He then suggested a bargain. ‘Be nice to me oVCT
the question of Saxony and I’ll be the same to you bvet the

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 255

question of Naples.’ Talleyrand replied that Alexander’s
views on Naples must surely be the same as his own< So
Alexander turned towards England and at the British
Embassy ball ‘danced ’polonaises with Lady Castlereagh and
country dances with Lady Matilda,’ a gesture which nobody
suspected of having any but a political significance.

The New Year saw the culmination of Talleyrand’s tire-
less efforts, the completion of his task. On 3rd January
there was signed a secret treaty between England, Austria,
and France. The three Powers undertook to act together
‘with perfect disinterestedness’ in^ order to carry out the
Treaty of Paris; if they could not succeed by peaceful means
they would each put into the field a force of 150,000 men
to defend whichever of them might be attacked. Bavaria,
Holland, Hanover, and Sardinia should be invited to accede
to the treaty.

Talleyrand may be pardoned the note of triumph in the
announcement of his success to 'Louis xviii. ‘The coalition
is dissolved. . . . France is no longer isolated in Europe. . , . ‘
Your Majesty possesses a federal system which fifty years of
negotiations might not have constructed. You are acting
in concert with two of the greatest Powers, and three states
of the second rank, and will soon be joined by all the states
whose principles and politics are not revolutionary. So
great and .so fortunate a change can only be attributed to
that protection of Providence which has been so plainly
visible in the restoration of Your Majesty.’

Perhaps it would have been more becoming to have
terminated his despatch with the expression of this lofty
sentiment. He went on, however, as follows: ‘After God,
the main causes of this change have been :

‘My letters to M. de Metternich and Lord Castlereagh
and the effect produced by them.

256 THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

‘The suggestions that I made to Lord Castlereagh con-
cerning an agreement with France, which I reported in
my last letter.

‘The pains that I took to calm his suspicions by showing
complete disinterestedness on the part of France.'

‘The peace with America.’

Even after the treaty was concluded a final effort was made
by the northern Powers to lure France away from her new
friends, and it affo'rded Talleyrand an opportunity of dis-
playing both his sincerity and his statesmanship.

The idea, already mooted, was once more brought for-
ward of compensating the King of Saxony in the Rhineland.
So feeble a neighbour naturally appeared to most French-
men far more desirable than the King of Prussia. Those who
had reluctantly abandoned that territory saw a hope of
regaining it, and Talleyrand admitted that for purposes of
ambition and conquest he would favour the plan; ‘but that
as his sincere desire and that of his Court was to put a
restraint upon any' extension of the existing boundaries of
France he was against the project.’ ‘This example of states-
manship, rare in history, won Castlereagh’s warm apprecia-
tion,’ is the comment of the latter’s biographer.

The altered attitude adopted by each of the signatories
of the treaty soon produced an effect upon the Congress.
In December war had seemed probable but the knowledge
that the three Powers were prepared to fight served, as such
knowledge usually does serve, to improve the prospects of
peace. On j;th January Castlereagh was able to report to
his Government. ‘The alarm of war is over.’

Although Talleyrand cannot be accused of excessive
modesty there was one boast that he might have made and
from which he refrained. The policy which he had been
pursuing at the Congress and which he had brought to

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

257

such a successful conclusion was no new scheme which he
had contrived to meet the occasion, no topical adaptation to
suit the fancy of his latest master, but was the same policy
for which he had worked all his life. He had welcomed it
before the Revolution, he had striven for it by the side 'of
Mirabeau, he had pursued it under the Feuillant Govern-
ment and under the Girondins, from exile he had urged it
upon Danton, during the Directorate he had endeavoured
to return to it, and under the Consulate he had promoted it at
the Peace of Amiens; he had remembered it at Erfurt and
supported it against Napoleon in good and in evil days. This
policy, the alliance with England and with Austria based
upon the common interest of those three Powerg in the main-
tenance of peace and in the avoidance of any alteration of
existing frontiers, he believed to be in the best interests of
France as well as of- Europe. At Vienna he had triumphed;
but already the restless exile of Elba was preparing to undo
his work and to unite once more the enemies of France
whom Talleyrand had succeeded in dividing.

7

Although much remained to be decided the months of
January and February passed peacefully at Vienna. The
questions of Poland and Saxony were settled by compromise.
Both the Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia got
less than they wanted, but both had to be contented with
what they could get.

The future of Naples presented some difficulty, for
Austria had guaranteed Murat in the po'ssession of his
kingdorn by formal treaty and the treaty had been recog-
nised by the British Government. The position of Mctter-
nich was rendered the more delicate by the fact that he had
been the lover of, and was apparently still in love with.

258 THE CONGRESS OF VIE NNA

Caroline Murat. Indignantly Louis xvin protested in a
letter to Talleyrand that the Emperor of Austria was worse
than Mark Antony who had at least made a conquest of
Cleopatra himself and had not allowed his policy to be
affected by the love affairs of his Minister.

Castlereagh’s difficulties in the matter were increased by
the attitude of certain Whig Members of Parliament who
cherished a sentimental admiration for the dashing cavalry
leader. This was not shared by the Duke of Wellington,
and Talleyrand recorded with disapproval that both Well-
ington and Castlereagh detested in Murat the man rather,
than the usurper. He deplored their indifference to his
beloved principle of legitimacy which he considered that
they seemed hardly to understand, adding the acid comment
that the policy pursued by the English in India naturally
debarred them from a proper appreciation of it.

The finesse of Metternich aided by the folly of Murat
eventually settled the matter without much assistance from
Talleyrand who, however, received a handsome pecuniary
reward from the restored Bourbons for the services he had
rendered.

One other negotiation with which Talleyrand was en-
trusted by Louis xviii was concerned with the marriage of
his nephew, the Duke of Berry, to a sister of the Czar. For
the second time he had to approach that monarch on behalf
of a suitor for his sister’s hand, and for the second time he
was unsuccessful.

One morning early in March before Talleyrand had
risen, his niece^ Madame de P^rigord, was sitting by his
bedside discussing the prospects of the day, and particularly
the rehearsal of some theatricals in which she was. to take
part. A letter was brought in from Metternich: Talley-
rand, saying that it was probably to inform him oT the hour
at which the Congress would meet, asked her to open it.

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

259

She did so and exclaimed on looking at it: ‘Bonaparte has
left Elba — oh, uncle, and my rehearsal!’ ‘Your rehearsal,
Madame, will take place all the same’ — was the quiet reply
of the Prince, who thereupon set about the usual prepara-
tions for his leisurely toilet.

It was the fashion at first in diplomatic circles at Vienna
to affect complete confidence on the receipt of this sensa-
tional •intelligence. Poxzo di Borgo prophesied that if
Napoleon dared to set foot in France he would be hanged on
the first tree, and Talleyrand himself was of opinion that
he would more probably attempt to collect a following in
Italy.before making any attack upon France.

It was, however, soon realised that the centre of interest
had shifted from the Austrian capita! and that work more
important than the negotiation of treaties was awaiting the
Duke of Wellington. The necessity for concluding without
further delay the business of the Congress sent Talleyrand,
together with Wellington and Metternich, on an urgent
mission to the King of Saxony at Pressburg in order to
induce him to accept the settlement which had already been
agreed to by the other Powers.

At Pressburg, there was living that same Madame de
Brionne who had loved Talleyrand when he was young and
had attempted to obtain a cardinal’s hat for him before the
Revolution. She was old and she was djdng. For a quarter
of a century she had severed all connection with one whose
political activities she so strongly condemned. When he had
been in Austria as the Minister of the victor of Austerlitz
in 1805 she had refused to receive him, but now that he was
in the service of the legitimate King of France she' con-
sented to do so.

Wellington, Metternich, King of Saxony, and all the
problems of the international flito^on at that great crisis
were forgotten as the old man hfleiU^lt the feet of the older

26 o the congress OF VIENNA

woman whom he had once loved and asked her forgiveness.
He felt her tears falling' upon him and heard her voice: ‘So,
you are there once more. I always believed that I should see
you again. Deeply as I have disapproved of you I have never
ceased for one moment to love you.’ The man whose im-
perturbable self-control had become a legend was so over-
come with emotion that he could find no words and was
compelled to leave the room and to seek the fresh air in
order to recover himself. When he returned they were able
to talk composedly of the past and the present. A few days
later she was dead.

Before the Congress dispersed it was important that those
who had taken part in it should make some public announce-
ment of the policy that they meant to pursue in the new
situation created by the return of Napoleon. Talleyrand
took credit to himself for the terms of the proclamation
which was issued and which made it plain that it was against
Napoleon only, and not against France, that the wrath of
Europe was directed. The usurper was denounced as the
enemy and disturber of the peace of the world and was
handed over to public vengeance. In his memoirs Talley-
rand is at pains to justify the term ‘usurper,’ explaining that
in the past, while Napoleon’s brothers were usurpers, he
himself was a conqueror, but that now he had become a
usurper too. Talleyrand would apparently have approved
of Napoleon’s statement that he had originally found the
crown of France in the gutter and had picked it up on the
point of his sword, but why the ten months’ residence of
Louis XVIII at Paris should have so materially altered the
rights and wrongs of the situation it is not easy to under-
stand.

Whatever may be thought about Talleyrand’s Arguments
with regard to the meaning of words it is plain that at this
moment he had sufficient sense of political realities to know .

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 261

that it was impossible for him ever again to serve under his
fotmer master. But Napoleon, whose weakness— and per-
haps whose strength— lay in his refusal’ to recognise impos-
sibilities, saw no objection to employing again the man
whom he had often blamed himself during the past year for
not having condemned to the gallows. ‘It is he, after all,’
said Napoleon, ‘who best understands this age and society,
both the Governments and the peoples. He deserted me —
but I had myself deserted him somewhat abruptly. . . , We
were not always of the same opinion, but more than once
the advice which he gave me was sound.’

At Lyons, midway in his triumphant progress, Napoleon
issued an edict of amnesty from which the name of Talley-
rand was one of the few omitted, but from Paris he despatched
messengers to Vienna charged to enlist the services of the
man whose property he had already sequestrated. The
envoys that ’ were selected were Montrond, Talleyrand’s
intimate friend, and Flahaut, his son. The latter got no
further than Stuttgart where he was arrested and recon-
ducted to the frontier, and Montrond, although he arrived
in Vienna, was equally unsuccessfuj. Upon one subject the
mind of Talleyrand was made up, as were those of all the
Sovereigns and responsible Ministers in Europe— whatever
the future might produce, whatever policy they might be
forced to pursue, they would have no further dealings with
Napoleon.

It was not until 9th June that the final act of the Congress
was signed. On the following day Talleyrand left Vienna.

Chapter Eleven

THE SECOND RESTORATION

1

During the eventful days that elapsed between Napoleon’s
landing at Cannes and his defeat at Waterloo two main
considerations occupied the minds of European statesrnen.
The first was how best to secure his defeat and the second
was whom to put in his place after he had been defeated.
While Louis xviii, fatuously confident in the strength of his
divine right, shambled with ponderous dignity from one
Flemish town to another, those who had been responsible
for his restoration and who felt that partly owing to his
ineptitude their efforts had been in vain, were casting about
for another solution to tffe problem.

There is no evidence, to show that during this period
Talleyrand ever wavered in his allegiance. But when the
future of Europe seemed once more to have been thrown
into the melting-pot it would have been contrary to the
principles which had guided him all his life to exclude the
possibility of any outcome save the one that he preferred, or '
to shut the door in the face of anyone who approached him
with a proposition.

To Montrond, despite the long friendship that united
them, he had given no word of encouragement, but when
others who had been associated with him in tlie past, but
who, owing to their Liberal or even Jacobin antecedents,
had been excluded from public life since the Restoration,
began to make their appearance at Vienna, it was only

26 u

THE SECOND RESTORATION 263

natural that jie should receive them and be prepared to
discuss the future of his country upon any basis save the
recognition of Napoleon. Lord Clancarty, who had been
left in charge of the English Mission, reported such develop-
ments with alarm. Castlereagh’s reply was characteristic both
of his sound sense and of his insular aloofness. ‘I agree with
you,’ he wrote, ‘tliat Talleyrand cannot be relied on, and
yet I know not on whom His Majesty can better depend. . . ,
The fact is, France is a den of thieves and brigands, and
they can only be governed by criminals like themselves.’

But whomever Talleyrand may have been seeing in Vienna,
and with whatever possibilities he may have been playing,
he was not afraid to perform the most ungrateful task of a
loyal friend in time of adversity, namely the demonstration
to the sufferer of his own responsibility for his misfortunes.
The office, delicate at all times, becomes dangerous when
the person in question is a king, and Talleyrand in order to
carry it out with becoming courtesy adopted the device of
putting his own words into the mouth of another.

In one long despatch which he addressed to Louis xviii
before leaving Vienna he outlined with considerable frank-
ness the mistakes that the King had, made during the past
year and gave him the soundest advice with regard to his
future conduct. At the same time he slightly sweetened the
pill by giving the impression that he was merely reporting
the views of the Emperor of Russia. In the first place he
pointed out how the good will of Alexander had • been
alienated. The Blue Ribbon which had been granted to the
Prince Regent had been withheld* from him, his inter-
cessions on behalf of Caulaincourt had been ignored, no
concession had been made over the religious difficulties that
arose in connection with his sister’s betrothal to the Duke of
Berry, and the Charter had been drawn up on lines far less
liberal than he desired.

264 THE SECOND RESTORATION

He then proceeded to analyse the support which Napoleon
was finding in France. It consisted of the army and of all
the old revolutionary factions. The army Louis could
hardly have hoped to win, but the leaders of the democracy
realised that Napoleon was in fact their greatest enemy.
These people, Talleyrand insisted, had abandoned any idea
of a republic, they were not opposed to the legitimate
dynasty, but what they could not bear was their exclusion
from all participation in politics. Rather than that they
were prepared to risk the horrors and hazards of a revolu-
tion. Now it was Napoleon’s main object to make the
present struggle appear a national war and it was for the
Allies to defeat this purpose by making' it plain that tliey
were fighting against Napoleon only and had no desire to
impose their will upon France. Alexander was fully alive
to the importance of this issue and in a recent conversation
with Clancarty he had insisted upon the danger,, supposing
they restored Louis xVin, of a similar catastrophe occurring
again at a time when the Allies were far less prepared to
meet it, when they were not all collected in one town, and
when they had not nearly a million men on a War footing.
He had then gone so. far as to propose that the Duke of
Orleans would be the best alternative — a Frenchman, a
Bourbon, and one who had served the constitutional cause
in his youth and worn the tricolour cockade, ‘which,’
Alexander added, or Talleyrand made him add, ‘as I often
said at Paris, ought never to have been given up.’

Having thus warned Louis of the danger Talleyrand went
on to advise him how best to avoid itj In the first place he
should isstie a declatation promising constitutional reform.
In the second place he should not await his return to France
in order to form a new Government. Thinly cloaking once
more his own opinions by attributing them to Alexander
he insisted upon the mistake of employing only men' who

THE SECOND RESTORATION 265

had emigrated and had therefore been out of touch with
France for the last twenty years. It was particularly regret-
table that the most unpopular of all these men was known
to be the one to whom Louis was most strongly attached—
the Count de Blacas; and he went so far as to state frankly
that the activities and the influence of the Count d’Artois
and his sons had done no good service to the restored
monarchy.

What effect such plain speaking produced upon the mind
of the King we cannot tell. His reply was to urge Talley-
rand to join him without delay. 'Surrounded as he was by
the most loyal and therefore the most reactionary of his
supporters he doubtless felt the need of one who was
capable both of putting forward the more moderate point of
view and of supporting it against all opponents.

2

t

By the time that Talleyrand reached Brussels the battle of
Waterloo had been fought and won. It was the Prince de
Cond^, grandfather of the ill-fated Duke d’Enghien, who
greeted him with the details of that event, and at the same
time congratulated -him upon the success that France had
achieved at Vienna, ‘with a grace,’ he wrote, ‘that I shall
never forget.’ Gratified by praise from such a quarter, and
fully conscious of the value of his own achievement, he
pressed on to join the King .whp had left Ghent after receiv-
ing the news of the battle and had travelled as far as Mons
on the road to France.

When Talleyrand arrived there some misunderstanding
arose between him and the King, the most detailed account
of which is contained in the memoirs of Chateaubriand.
Any information from suCh a source concerning Talleyrand
must be regarded with suspicion owing to the mutual dislike

i66 THE SECOND RESTORATION

which existed between the two men, and when the incident
is one in which the pen of a great literary artist might be
tempted to enhance the drama such suspicion will be in-
creased. According to Chateaubriand Talleyrand having
arrived at six in the evening was soon surrounded by a court
of flatterers, and when it was suggested that he should pay
his respects to the King he replied haughtily that it would
be time enough to do so on the morrow. The King, naturally
resenting such conduct, was nevertheless, persuaded by
Chateaubriand to allow him to act as an unofficial mediator,
and he accordingly visited Talleyrand and pressed him to
reconsider his decision, without success. The King then
decided to leave Mons at three in the morning. On learn-
ing that he was doing so Talleyrand leapt from his bed and,
having made the hastiest toilet of his life, intercepted the
royal carriage as it was actually leaving the gates of the
King’s lodging. Louis then consented to grant him an
interview and having listened to all he had to say calmly
recommended him to take a cure at some watering place,
and having thus signified his dismissal proceeded on his
journey. No explanation is, attempted as to why either the
one or the other should have behaved so foolishly.

Talleyrand’s own account of the interview agrees that it
took place when the King’s carriage was already w'aiting,
but makes no mention of the hour. He immediately ex-
pressed his deep regret that the King should be regaining
• France in the wake of the British army, and strongly urged
him to take a different route, no matter which, so long as he
crossed the frontier at some point where there were no
foreign troops to protect him. He suggested that Lyons
would be the best place to aim at, and that, having arrived
there, he should establish himself in complete independence
of the Allies. As the King refused to accept this advice he
tendered his resignation.

THE SECOND RESTORATION

267

3

Whichever of the two accounts may be the more correct
the one fact that emerges from both is that Talleyrand was
not prepared to resume his former position as though nothing
had happened nor to allow his master to suppose that the
Hundred Days were merely an unfortunate incident that
was best forgotten.

He was determined that for once the Bourbons should be
compelled to overcome their proverbial reluctance. to learn
anything from events. For six months he had been serving
to the best of his ability and with conspicuous success both
France and Louis. There, at Vienna, he had been in touch
with the public opinion of Europe, and he knew that unless
he could impress upon tlie King something of what he had
learnt there the second Restoration would last no longer
than the first. He had accordingly drawn up a memorandum
which he handed to the King before they separated at Mons.

In this document he first defended his own conduct both
in concluding the Treaty of Paris and in the handling of
affairs at the Congress. He proceeded without any disguise
or apology to criticise the manner in which France had been
governed meanwhile. While the principle of legitimacy was
triumphing at the Congress it was being attacked at home.
This was mainly due to the fact that those who supported it
confused legitimacy with absolutism. ‘The spirit of the
times in which we live demands that in great civilised states
supreme power shall only be exercised with the consent of
bodies drawn from the heart of the society that it governs.’
To fight against' that opinion was to fight against universal
opinion, and the fact that many who were opposed to it had
recently surrounded the throne had gravely injured the
Government, The reason why the principle of legitimacy
had fallen into disrepute was because some people believed

268

that

The second restoration

'^Oftftoted absolutism, and recent actions of. the
encouraged that belief, in the old days
bef support of religion and people could

DO right, but religion now had lost the great

m possessed and in the modern world Icgiti-

ut'rf * T ^^oiything else must stand or fall by the test of
think h ^^^^titages were obvious, but if people came to

not su abuses outweighed the advantages it could

eve^'^h^^^^’ was a mistake to suppose that the royal power
limited h absolute in France, In the past it had been
of the action of the magistrature, of the clergy, and

infl ‘Ability. These bodies no longer exercised the same
and to religion had penetrated all classes

have th general. Sovereign power must therefore

must ^ of public opinion, and in order to have it

ante harmony with public opinion. Certain guar-

of the ''^‘dispensable. Liberty of the individual, liberty
of M' independent judiciary, and responsibility

insisted*^ briefly, were the points upon which he
which he^h '^'5; these, roughly, were the points upon
A . i^id stress in his election address to the clerics

of Autun m xys^.

Decul' ^ he respectfully informed the King, were not
covered do one country but were hMd by all, as he had dis-
that F ^'onna where it had been generally regretted
qP g '*iand vu should have been restored to the throne

stitud ’'^fhout having been compelled to grant a Con-

should^R dhe first importance that His Majesty

for En regard to the opinions of other Powers,

return f ^ r ^lone among them, genuinely desired his
^Jid Pru ' dhrone; Russia was hostile, Austria was tepi,d,
ment thought of nothing save her own aggrandise-

he declaration, however, which Louis had already

THE SECOND RESTORATION 269

issued on his own initiative had made the error of under-
lining the fact that he was being restored by foreign soldiery;
he should therefore lose no time in issuing another designed
to win over to his side all that weight of public opinion which
had hitherto supported Bonaparte.

This brief summary of a lengthy document should suffice
to show how calm, how clear, and how statesmanlike was
the mind of the man who wrote it; and it seems the more
remarkable when we^ remember that it must have been com-
posed as he went jolting over the broken roads of Europe
from Vienna! to Brussels, taking short rests at bad inns,
that it was completed almost within earshot of the cannon
of Waterloo, and presented to the restored monarch in the
intoxicating hour of victory.

But Louis, deaf to the voice of reason, fearful for the
fate of his own favourite, M. de Blacas, and glad to be rid
of a Minister whom he could never like, placidly pursued
his way as far as Le Cateau,. where his next ha|,t was made.
Talleyrand remained at Mons, and, whatever his real feelings
may have been, presented the appearance of being well’
content with the way that things had fallen out. Count
Beugnot met him at dinner at the Mayor’s. ‘M. de Talley-
rand,’ he writes, ‘showed on that occasion a quality which I
did not know he possessed, that of being an excellent com-
panion. He was in a charming humour apd vented his ’wit
in amusing anecdotes and pungent phrases. I had never
known him so frank and pleasant. Seeing and hearing him
one would certainly not have thought that he was a Minister
who had been disgraced a few hours before. Was he yield-
ing to the pleasure of being freed 'from conducting the
affairs of France at a time when they were more complicated
and difficult than ever? Or was he, perhaps, hiding under
those apparent high spirits the regret and the anger by which
he was secretly devoured? The second explanation is

270 , THE SECOND RESTORATION

certainly the more probable: but then what sort of man really
is M. de Talleyrand ?’

Postponing the solution of this problem which puzzled so
many of his contemporaries Beugnot devoted himself to the
task of reconciling the fallen Minister with .his master. He
claims to have succeeded in this endeavour by securing the
.advocacy of Talleyrand’s uncle, the aged Cardinal, for whom
he always had the deepest respect and who happened to
be in Mons at the moment. Vitrolles s^ys that it was a letter
from Wellington that persuaded him, but whatever may
have been the causes, and they were probably numerous, he
eventually pocketed his pride, rejoined his master at Cam-
brai, and proceeded to act as though there had. never been
any question of his resignation.

A council was held forthwith and Talleyrand did not
hesitate to make plain his position. He had prepared, with
the aid of Beugnot, the draft -of a proclamation which he
thought that the King should issue, and in which the mis-
takes of his previous Government were recognised and the
intention expressed of correcting them in the future. It
was the duty of Beugnot, whose memoirs furnish the auth-
ority for this incident, to read the proclamation to the
Council. When he had concluded the King, whose features
betrayed his emotion, commanded him to read it again.
After the second reading the Count d’Artois was the first
to speak. He complained bitterly of the terms of the pro-
clamation. It made the King confess to having been guilty
of mistakes,^ and to having been led away by his affections.
It represented His Majesty as begging the pardon of his
people and promising to behave differently in future. -Such
language, which meant either nothing or too much, was
humiliating to royalty.

Talleyrand immediately replied. He defended the Ian-

THE SECOND RESTORATION 271

guage used. The King had made mistakes; he had allowed
his affections to mislead him.

‘Is it to me that you indirectly refer?’ demanded the
Count d’Artois.

‘Yes, since Monsieur has put the question in that way;
Monsieur has done much harm.’

‘The Prince de Talleyrand forgets himself.’

‘I fear so, but the truth carries me away.’

This was strange language for a time-server to use’ when
addressing the heir to the throne, the heir of an aged and.
ailing monarch. It was more than the Duke of Berry, his
impetuous son, could bear and the authority of the King, his
uncle, was necessary in order to call him to order and to
prevent the council from degenerating into a brawl. The
discussion passed on to another subject but the proclama-
tion acknowledging faults committed was eventually signed
by the King and issued from Cambrai on 28th June.
Wellington, who was already negotiating terms with those
who for the moment exercised authority at Paris, was well
pleased with the terms of this proclamation which facilitated
his task. He was, as ever, the most conciliatory of con-
querors, and the only point upon which he and Talleyrand
differed was the return of the works of art looted by
Napoleon’s armies to the countries to which they belonged.
Strange are the manifestations of national prejudice. This
condition imposed by the Allies, which seemed, and still
seems, to most Englishmen an act of obvious equity, was
more bitterly resented by the French than any other action
taken as a result of the second occupation of Paris.

4

No greater misfortune can befall a master of political
intrigue than to be absent from the scene at the moment

274 THE SECOND RESTORATION

when the crisis arises. This had been Fouch^’s ill-fate at the
time of the first Restoration. He was determined not to let
it occur again and during the days that followed Waterloo,
while the defeated Emperor waited irresolutely at Mal-
maison, Fouchd, Duke of Otranto, made himself master of
the situation in Paris. Now, the grave objection to Fouche
from the point of view of Louis xviii was that he had voted
for the death of Louis xvi. Far as the restored King was
prepared to go in forgetting the past he had never yet been
asked to receive a regicide.

Wellington, whose genius lay in summing up the practical
needs of any situation and in taking the necessary steps with-
out loss of time, was already in communication with Fouchd.
He saw that only through the compliance of Fouchd could
Paris be occupied without further fighting, which he was,
as ever, anxious to avoid. It was accordingly arranged that
on the evening of yth July, Wellington,’ accompanied by
Talleyrand and Pozzo di Borgo, should meet Fouche at
Neuilly in order to discuss the situation. Louis xvni when
informing the Baron de Vitrolles that he had authorised the
interview added that he had told his emissaries while doing
their best for his cause to remember his feelings— T asked
them to be gentle with me, and reminded them that it was
my virginity.’ Vitrolles, a better Royalist than, the King,
was not amused by the' jest and immediately repaired to
Talleyrahd’s room to await his return. It was a long vigil.
The dawn had broken before the carriage was heard on the
cobble-stones and the limping step of -the statesman ih the
corridor. Well, well. Monsieur de Vitrolles,’ he exclaimed,
while two valets set about the task .of undressing him, ‘your
Duke of Otranto told us nothing at all. What do you think'
of that?’ Poor Vitrolles was equally annoyed by the
meagrencss of such information, and by the suggestion
that he had some proprietary interest in the Duke of

THE SECOND RESTORATION

273

Otranto. He hurried off during the inorning to Fouchi^ and
asked him why he had said nothing to the King’s emissaries.
‘What would you have me say,’ he replied, ‘to people who
say nothing to me?’ and Vitrolles had to be content with
this abridged version of the all-night sitting.

In fact Fouch^ had spent most of the time in describing
the difficulties of the situation, difficulties which were
largely of his own creation, and in exaggerating the strength
of the, Liberal and the Republican parties in order to increase
the importance of the services that he was prepared to
render. Talleyrand understood him, and it was arranged
that they should meet again that day at dinner with the
Duke of Wellington. They dined in the pretty house at
Neuilly which had belonged to Murat. Once again Fouchd
began to paint in the most lurid colours the situation in
Paris and the strength of the opposition to the Bourbons,
until Talleyrand finally cut him short with a firm offer— a
complete amnesty for all his friends and the Ministry of
Police for himself. It was good enough. Fouchd lost no
further time in accepting it, and forthwith they two drove
off together to the King for Fouchd to kiss hands on his
appointment. Chateaubriand, who had a longer memory than
politicians can afford, saw the two as, Talleyrand leaning on
' Fouch^’s arm, they passed through the royal ante-chamber. It
seemed to him a vision of Vice supported by Crime. ‘The loyal
regicide, kneeling, laid the hands which caused the head of
Louis XVI to fall between the hands of the brother of the
royal martyr; the renegade bishop stood surety for the oath.’

On 8 th July Louis xviii once more returned to his
capital. He was received by the Parisians without the
slightest enthusiasm. On the following day ther.e appeared
the official announcement' of Talleyrand’s appointment as
President of the Council and Minister for Foreign Affairs.

274

THE SECOND RESTORATION

S

Talleyrand’s Ministry was composed, as was to be
expected, of moderate men who had served under the last
regime. He did not forget his friends. While retaining for
himself the Ministry for Foreign Affairs together with the
Presidency of the Council he assigned the Ministry of
Finance to the Baron Louis and the Admiralty to the faithful
Jaucourt.

For the history of this short-lived Government we rely
largely upon the records left in their memoirs by Pasquier,
the Minister of Justice, and Mold, the Minister of Trans-
port. Pasquier was one of those familiar figures in political
life who, entirely without distinction, yet seerti to render
themselves indispensable to Governments, whose very
mediocrity secures them from committing great errors and
who fill one office after another with complete lack of
imagination and with unimpeachable competence.

Mold was of a different type. He belonged to his age
and might have stepped from the pages of one of the
romantic novels that were then fashionable. Strikingly
handsome, he was descended from one of the oldest families
of the nobility of the law. As a child of twelve he had seen
his father dragged away to trial and the guillotine, and had
walked beside the stretcher upon which his mother had been
carried to prison. Early privations had impaired his health
as seriously as misfortune had embittered his mind. He had
served Napoleon without enthusiasm, and he states as his
principal reason for taking office under Talleyrand the desire
to divert his mind by hard work from brooding over certain
melancholy experiences connected with affairs of the heart.

The first task of the new Government was to summon a
Parliament. So far as the Upper Chamber was concerned
Talleyrand, still faithful to his admiration for the English

THE SECOND RESTORATION

275

Constitution, desired it to be hereditary, and despite the
wishes of the King, who would have preferred an assembly
over which he could exercise greater influence, an hereditary
Chamber was decided upon, and the nomination of peers
was left to the Government,

The exercise of such important patronage was a great
responsibility, but Talleyrand took it lightly. Vitrolles has
described the scene as he saw it. T arrived one morning at
the house of M. de Talleyrand and found him alone with
M. Pasquier. He was walking up and down while M.
Pasquier sat with his pen in his hand. “You see,” he said,
"we are busy making peers. The Chambers will soon meet.
We don’t know what influence we shall have in the Chamber
of Deputies and we must be sure of the support of the
Chamber of Peers.”

‘Then, continuing to walk up and down, the Prince
mentioned names just as they occurred to him, as he might
have done if it had been a question of invitations to a dinner
or a ball.’ As the other members of the Government dropped
in they were all asked to suggest names. Vitrolles himself
mentioned one or two, including that of a distinguished
sailor. Talleyrand was pleased with the suggestion — ‘That
will please the navy,’ he said, and asked the Minister fof
that department to suggest a few more admirals.

To the surprise and indignation of the virtuous Vitrolles
the list of peers drawn ^up in this frivolous fashion was
approved without change or comment by the indolent King.
On the evening of the day that it received the royal signature
Talleyrand casually informed the company collected in his
drawing-room that the announcement would appear in the
Monitenr on the following day. Not unnaturally those present
were interested and excited. Nobody knew but thdt he him-
self, or his nearest relative, might have suddenly been pro-
moted to the position of a peer of France. ‘Tense expecta-

276 THE SECOND RESTORATION

tion was depicted on every face,’ writes Mole. ‘That of
M. de Talleyrand, on the other hand, seemed to me more
of a mask than ever. It was as if he were genuinely sorry for
people capable of becoming so excited over such a trifle.

‘ “Good heavens,” he said to his questioners; “you’ll see it
in the paper. I can’t exactly remember myself, I believe
there’s a Monsieur so-and-so”; and he named myself and
three more persons present.’ This was the first that Mole had
heard' of the matter, and he was, he says, never more amazed
inTis life.

Later Talleyrand informed "Vitrolles that two names had
been orrntted, those of the Count de Blacas and M. de la
Ch^tre. ‘And who do you think reminded me of the
omission ? Why, it was Madame de Jaucourt, who was din-
ing with me.’ Now Madame de Jaucourt in the days of
Juniper Hall had been Madame de la Chitre, but she had
long since divorced her husband and married her lover. It
was kind of her to remember the interests of the former at
such d moment. Vitrolles comments acidly: ‘M. de Talley-
rand was much amused by this incident.’ The question,
however, was whether the two names could be included in
the official list. The King had gone to bed according to his .
invariable habit, at eleven o’clock, and even the intrepid
Vitrolles dared not disturb him. So Talleyrand persuaded
him to take the lesser risk of inserting the names in the list
on his own authority; a decision which subsequently received
the royal approval.

While thus light-heartedly creating a hereditary peerage
Talleyrand spared no effort in order to ensure that the
elections for the Lower Chamber should return a majority
well aflTected to the restored monarchy. He succeeded
beyond h'is hopes and beyond his wishes. Popular elections,
even with the restricted franchise then exercised in France,
arc always capable of producing surprises. Instead of a

THE SECOND RESTORATION 377

Chamber being returned with, a respectable working majority
in favour of the Government and a fairly representative
opposition, the Royalists succeeded in sweeping the country.
Bonapartists, Republicans, Jacobins were wiped out, and
Talleyrand’s Government 'of moderate men, who had served
under the Empire, found themselves faced by an elected
Chamber of extremists who regarded them with the gravest
suspicion., Ministers who had been forced by circumstances
on Louis XVIII had now to rely upon the support of deputies
whose views were much more royalist and reactionary tlian
those of the King. They were caught between the hammer
'of a monarch to whom they were personally uncongenial
and the anvil of a popular assembly which differed from
them profoundly in principle.

Fouch^ was the first to fall. He had created for himself a
powerful following in the most exclusive circles of the
Faubourg St. Germain. He had even, old and ugly as he was,
won the hand of a maiden belonging to one of the noblest
families. The King himself had witnessed the marriage
contract. The Duke of Otranto believed that his position
was secure and that belief was his fatal and his final error.
The affection that he had • inspired in the hearts of the
aristocracy had its origin in fear. They had looked to
Fouche as the one man who could protect them from the
Jacobins, but now that the Jacobins had ceased to be a
menace they remembered that Fouche had been a Jacobin
himself. Almost his last act contributed to his own down-
fall for he was compelled to draw up a list of those whose
conduct during the Hundred Days could not be forgiven.
It was a strange document, for few of those whose names
appeared on it had been more guilty than the man who com-
piled it. ‘One must do him the justice,’ said Talleyrand, ‘to
recognise that he has omitted none of his friends.’ Previously
we have compared' the function of Fouchd to that of an

478 THE SECOND RESTORATION

exterminator of rats who, if he is wise, leaves sufficient stock
behind him to render his further employment necessary. This
time none had been spared. The task of the rat-catcher was
completed; his services were no longer required.

Talleyrand had never liked Fouche. Now he no longer
feared him. The method that he chose for informing him of
his fate was characteristic. Vitrolles has described the
scene. ‘The Council was coming to an end in Monsieur de
Talleyrand’s house. Fie was half-sitting on his writing-
table between the two windows of his room. His bad leg
was hanging and the other one was supported on the floor.
All the Ministers had shut their portfolios; some were
seated, others were standing by the round table, and I was
in a large arm-chair between the door and the fireplace.

‘ “Gentlemen,” said M. de Talleyrand in a manner cal-
culated to attract attention, “I have now at my disposal the
best appointment that the King can give.”

‘ “What post is that.?” said M, Pasquier, turning round.

Talleyrand then proceeded to expatiate on the humiliations
of a Minister’s position in France and the unpleasant
necessity of negotiating with the Allied Sovereigns. “There
is still one country and one only where the King’s Minister
can retain the advantages of his rank and exercise real
influence. And that Minister is he who shall represent
France in the United States.’’

Silenfce fell on the Council. Others might be uncertain
as to the meaning of the words, but Fouchd understood. It
was his sentence of exile, the end of his career. His eyes
flashed hatred at Vitrolles whom he knew for his enemy.
But Talleyrand breaking the uncomfortable silence calmly
proceeded : “America is such a beautiful country. Do you
know that country, Monsieur de Vitrolles,? I know it, I
have travelled through it and lived in it; it’s a superb country.
There are rivers there such as we have never seen. The

THE SECOND RESTORATION 279

Potomac, for instance, nothing more Beautiful than the
Potomacl And then those magnificent forests full of those
trees . . . what are they called?”

‘ “Daturas,” suggested Vitrolles.

‘ “That’s it, forests of daturas.” ’

A lot poor Fouch^ cared about the Potomac or the forests
of daturas. The beauties of nature had never been one of his
weaknesses, and as he passed from the scene of history he
must have carried with him a bitter hatred for the old rival
who had so delicately and with such exquisite pleasure
administered the coup de grace.

6

No doubt Talleyrand had hoped by throwing Fouchd to
the wolves to satisfy their appetites for a time and obtain a
respite for himself. This hope was doomed to disappoint-
ment. The situation described above rendered his position
increasingly difficult. Without the support either of the
King or the Chamber he could not survive. He had an
additional and a powerful enemy in the Emperor Alexander
who had never forgiven him for the part he had played at
Vienna.

It is possible that by the exercise of his unfailing charm
Talleyrand might have regained the confidence of his old
friend. He made little effort to do so. Both Pasquier and
Mol^ are agreed that he seemed to be suffering at this
period from a curious mental lassitude which rendered him
incapable of comprehending or coping with the situation.
Both writers attribute his failure to the same cause.

Among the honours that had fallen to him as a result
o^ the Congress of Vienna had been the offer of a duchy from
the restored rulers of Naples. He had refused it for himself
but had asked that it might be bestowed upon his nephew,

28 o the second restoration

and it was thus thkt his niece-in-law, Madame Edmond de
Pdrigord, became the Duchess of Dino. With this young
lady, despite the difference of age and despite the official
and the unofficial relationship, he was now passionately in
love. At Vienna, according to rumour, she had been at-
tracted by a younger rival. Compelled to return to Paris
she had begun, according to the fashion of the day, to pine
away with melancholy. Afraid that she might die or leave
him, Talleyrand had allowed her to return to Vienna. But
the concession had affected him deeply and it was unfortunate
that at this moment when such heavy responsibilities weighed
upon him he should have been a prey to the pains of love
and the pangs of jealousy.

The drama ended happily for Talleyrand. Mold, to whom
we are indebted for these details, says that the ambition of
the lady was ‘to govern some famous and really powerful
man. Nature had fitted her to play such a r6le, and to play
it not without brilliance.’ On this occasion she ‘sacrificed
her love to her ambition.’ But the sacrifice was made too
late to save the Government.

While his mind was principally occupied with matters of
this nature it is not surprising that Talleyrand was incapable
of devoting to affairs of state the attention they demanded.
‘I feel I ought to write to the Emperor of Russia,’ he said
one day to Madame de Rdmusat, ‘but it’s a bore and I
should much prefer to go and play whist with Madame de
Laval, who is expecting me. You must write the letter for
me.’ She did so, and the result was disappointing.

It is at least doubtful, however, whether any efforts that
Talleyrand could have made would have won back for him
the good will of Alexander. The latter was also under the
influence of a wolnan, and Madame de Krudener had so
filled his head with exalted notions concerning the divine
tights of kings and the truths of the Christian religion that

THE SECOND RESTORATION 2S1

there was little hope of any impression being made upon
him by one who was an ex-revolutionary and a married
bishop. When Talleyrand invited the Duke de Richelieu,
the most broad-minded, and high-principled of the emigrant
aristocracy to take office, he refused on the ground that his
long absence from France unfitted him for such respon-
sibility. But as this excuse did not prevent him from form-
ing a Government himself two months later, those were
probably right who attributed his refusal to the influence of
Alexander. He was on intimate terms with the Czar who
had given him a home during the emigration and made him
Governor of the Crimea.

Talleyrand could read the signs of the time. He had
dealt with situations far more complicated. The dismissal
of Fouchi^ had availed him nothing. When his agents in
the Chamber pointed out to the deputies, plain country
gentlemen from the provinces, the counterpart of the Tory
squires who filled the Restoration Parliament, how great a
service he'had performed in getting rid of Fouchd, they were
met with the reply; ‘Yes, the King was right to send away
Fouche, but when will he send away the other one ?’

‘What other one ?’

‘Why,.M. de Talleyrand himself.’

No Government can last for ever. To select the right
moment for resignation is one of the most difficult tasks
that confronts the politician. Terms of peace had not yet
been concluded. They were bound to be painful and
humiliating for France. Talleyrand saw no reason why his
Government, distrusted by Parliament and disliked by the
King, should incur the additional odium of signing an un-
popular treaty. The tone of his notes to the Allies grew
perceptibly haughtier and less accommodating. Finally he
presented an ultimatum to the King. In view of the difficulty
of the task before them, and of the lack of support that they

202 THE SECOND RESTORATION

met with in the Chamber, they must insist upon the formal
and unequivocal assurance of His Majesty’s support, and
failing to obtain it they must tender their resignations. Far
from being taken aback by such peremptory language, the
old King, whose imperturbability was truly royal and almost
great, replied calmly, after one moment’s silence: ‘Very
well then, I will take a new Government.'

It was Talleyrand’s turn to be astonished. He had
expected protests, he had probably been prepared to yield
to persuasion; but the way in which his resignation was
accepted, with unruffled composure and without a comment
took, for once, the wind from his sails. It was not thus that
Napoleon behaved at a crisis— nor Barras, nor Danton, nor
Mirabeau. ‘The King seemed enchanted to get rid of us,’ he
said afterwards with a smile.

His regret at going was tempered by the reflection that
the moment had been well chosen, and by the belief that
his exclusion from office could not be of long duration. He
made two mistakes. He exaggerated, as Ministers are apt
to do, the value of his own services, believing that they
would soon prove to be indispensable. He also under-
estimated the ingratitude of the Bourbons. He did not think
that a family, for whose restoration he had twice been mainly
responsible, would offer him no further employment during
the fifteen years that they retained the throne.

Chapter Twelve

RETIREMENT

I

Compulsory retirement from public life puts a test upon
the dignity of a politician. The result is usually disappoint-
ing. This is less to be wondered at in the case of men who
have no interests beyond the political horizon. But even
those whose leisure can be crowded with broad intellectual
and varied social activites are often too reluctant to relinquish
the noisy and exhausting scene of their hard-won and short-
lived political triumphs. So deep and tenacious is the hold
that this particular form of excitement takes upon the minds
of men, that there are few indeed whose assurances of ttie
pleasure with which they withdraw from the arena can be
received without suspicion of their sincerity.

In the case of Talleyrand the fall from power was softened
by every circmnstance that could detract from its bitter-
ness. It was accompanied by no disgrace. It left to others
the uncongenial duty of signing peace treaties with vic-
torious enemies. The post of Grand Chamberlain, which
was shortly afterwards conferred on him, was a dignified
sinecure bringing with it 100,000 francs a year and assuring
to its holder a permanent footing at Court and a prominent
position at every important ceremony. This income, added
to the wealth he had already accumulated, enabled him to
live and to entertain upon the lavish scale which he con-
sidered suitable to his position. He would continue to play
in the eyes of the world tlie leading part to which he had

*83

RETIREMENT

284

been so long accustomed, and his salons would continup to
be filled with the familiar crowd, who, with the same vigil-
ance, would still watch for, hang upon, and repeat his every
word and gesture.

Nor had he any reason to believe that the policy for which
he stood was to suffer as the result of his downfall. Louis
did not turn, as he might with good excuse have done, to
the extreme Royalists to form a Government. Still wiser
than his own supporters, he v/as determined not to be ruled
by the hotheads who formed the majority in the Chamber,
and who were prepared to prove themselves, in their turn,
almost as bloodthirsty as the Jacobins in the days of the
Terror. The new Government was headed by the Duke de
Richelieu, who refused to be driven from the path of modera-
tion; and Decazes, as Minister of Police, became not only
the .King’s favourite but also a powerful advocate of the
cause of sanity and conciliation. During the next twelve
months Europe witnessed the curious spectacle of a restored
monarch attempting, rather feebly, to defend his old enemies
from those who were determined to avenge his wrongs.

The first and the most illustrious to pay the penalty was
Marshal Ney. Louis had groaned when he heard of his
arrest, but the Royalists had cheered. He demanded to be
tried by the House of Peers. Talleyrand wisely declined
to sit in judgment on him. He had no particular affection
for Ney, but he doubtless saw as clearly as Louis did how
great would be the reaction in the heroic Marshal’s favour
after his death.

Fear, th^ most common cause of cruelty, was the motive
power behind those who were demanding that extreme
penalties should be inflicted on all their opponents. The
astonishing ease with which Napoleon had effected the over-
throw of the first Restoration made many tremble for the
security of the second. It was a cloak and dagger period.

RETIREMENT

285

Some of Balzac’s stories which describe it are apt to strike
the modern reader as too sensational. But he was writing
of what he had seen. Dark conspiracies, secret societies,
midnight meetings of desperate men, impossible plots —
these were the order of the day; and real as a great deal of
the danger may have been, it was many times exaggerated
in the imaginations of the fearful.

When conspiracy was in the air it was not unnatural that
the nervous and the credulous should look for the hidden
hand of the arch-schemer in every manifestation of dis-
content. It was disappointing when one conspiracy after
another was proved to be the work of obscure individuals,
involving nobody of any importance. In vain the arrested
conspirators were urged to reveal the names of their power-
ful supporters. A certain Didier, who was executed for
having organised an ineffective rising at Grenoble, was
reported to have said before his death: ‘Let the King keep
the Duke of Orleans and M. de Talleyrand as far from the
throne and from France as possible.’ The only evidence of
the statement, however, was that of the General who had put
down the rising, who had tried and brutally punished all
concerned, and who afterwards was shown to have been
guilty in his reports of such wild exaggeration that his
testimony was generally discredited. Even if Didier used the
words suggested they proved nothing, and the Sentiment
would have been echoed by half the population of France.

Nevertheless Talleyrand’s conduct at this time may have
been partly influenced by the knowledge that such suspicion
was bound to attach to him and by the desire to convince
the Royalists of his loyalty to their cause, Such motives for
aligning himself with the party of the Count d’Artois and
the extremists were powerfully reinforced by the natural
antipathy of a fallen Minister towards his successor.

These were his excuses for temporarily appearing on a

286

RETIREMENT

side with which he could have had scant sympathy. It
availed him little for he became further estranged from the
King, with whom in reality he had so much in common,
but who was strongly influenced by the desire to be served
by Ministers who were personally agreeable to him. The
King had esteem for Richelieu and he was deeply devoted to
Decazes. Of Richelieu Talleyrand said that he had been
selected to govern France because he was the Frenchman
who knew most about the Crimea, and Decazes he described
as resembling a fairly good-looking barber’s assistant. These
witticisms, and as many others as Talleyrand indulged in at
the expense of Ministers, were faithfully reported by them
to their master. Decazes had inherited the efficient police
system of Fouchd, and made full use of it for keeping his
enemies under observation. Whether Talleyrand was enter-
taining in the Rue St. Florcntin, or arranging his library at
Valen9ay, or drinking the waters at Bourbon I’Archambault,
reports of all his movements and most of his sayings were
regularly received by the Minister of Police, who as regularly
lafd them before tlie King.

While Talleyrand thus succeeded in permanently alien-
ating any good will that Louis might have felt towards him,
he made little progress in his attempts to gain the confidence
of the extreme Royalists. The intelligence that could charm
Napoleon, outwit Metternich, and defeat Fouchd was thrown
away on the stolid country gentlemen who formed the
majority in the ‘Incomparable Chamber.’ Against the wiles
of the subtlest intriguer there is no weapon so effective as
impenetrable stupidity.

His credit therefore fell with all parties during the year
that followed his fall from office. It was not enhanced by
an agreement which he forced his wife to accept, whereby
in return for a pension she was to live abroad and trouble
him no longer.

RETIREMENT

287

2

He continued to play his part at Court, and in June of
this year he was present at the reception of the young
Princess of Sicily who came to marry the Duke of Berry.
He drove out with the King from Fontainebleau to meet
her at certain cross-roads in the forest. It was the very spot
at which twelve years earlier he had stood with Napoleon
when they greeted Pope Pius vii, who was coming for the
coronation. During the drive Louis was extremely affable.
‘His conversation,’ wrote Talleyrand, ‘never flags and is
always interesting.

But the King’s affability was not a proof of his favour.
The violent abuse x)f the Government in which Talleyrand
frequently indulged and which, with a curious lack of
caution in one proverbially prudent, he poured forth with-
out any discrimination before many who were bound to
repeat it, did him harm, not only with those' whom it
offended, but also with unprejudiced witnesses, who con-
cluded from such behaviour that his faculties were beginning
to fail. ‘He has prodigiously gone to pieces,’ wrote Von
Goltz, the Prussian Minister. ‘There is nothing more to
be done with him,’ said Wellington, and even young James
Gallatin, the son of the American Minister, found time to
note In his diary, which was principally devoted to amorous
adventures, that: ‘Prince Talleyrand is such an intriguer, so
absolutely false that nobody trusts him.’

The climax was reached at a dinner-party at the British
Embassy on i8th November, Talleyrand was at this time
living under a regime according to which he ate and drank
nothing until the evening. It was noticed that, as a result,
he was inclined both to eat and drink mote than was good
for him at the one meal he was permitted. He would become
flushed at its conclusion and would talk more freely than

288

RETIREMENT

was his custom. He was fond of dining at the Embassy; he
felt more at home there than anywhere, and he believed that
England more than any other Power desired his return to
office.

After dinner was over and the guests had left the dining-
room, he led one or two of the Frenchmen into a recess
where he began to inveigh against the Government. There
was nothing peculiar about a fallen statesman denouncing
his successors, but the British Embassy was hardly the
appropriate place for an attack upon the King’s Ministers
by a Frenchman still holding a high Court appointment.
Pasquier was there, and Pasquier, who had been Minister of
Justice under Talleyrand, now occupied the office of President
of the Chamber. He overheard enough of the conversation
to make him anxious to escape, but Talleyrand fastened upon
him and cornpelled him to listen. The arrival of some new
guests, however, seemed to give him the opportunity he
wanted, and he was hastily beating a retreat when Talley-
rand shouted after him, in tones loud enough for the whole
room to hear, a violently worded insult at the expense of
the Minister of Police, Decazes, the King’s favourite.
Pasquier replied with dignity— this is his own account of
the incident — ‘that Talleyrand might tliink what he liked,
but that so long as the King had a Minister of Police nobody
had the right to refer to him in such language.’ He there-
upon left the room but Talleyrand shouted after him : ‘And
the Chamber of Deputies allows itself to be run by the
Minister of Police,’ This was a direct insult to Pasquier in
view of the office that he held, and it was fortunate that,
having left the room, he was able to ignore it.

But the news spread rapidly. Talleyrand knew that it
would. A moment’s reflection, a slight fall in temperature,
convinced him that he had acted foolishly and that his
enemies would lose no time In taking advantage of his follyl

RETIREMENT

289

He knew the importance of spreading the right rumour
and of making sure that the drawing-rooms of Paris should
first receive his own version of the tale. He hurried therefore
from the Embassy to the house of Madame de Laval. It
was there that in January 1809 he had told the story of his
famous scene with the Emperor, and he now again turned to
the same organ of publicity as the best calculated to serve
his interests in that small but powerful world of opinion
which consisted of fashionable society. But his task was
too difficult. No nation sets higher store by decorum than
the French. In 1809 it was Napoleon whose behaviour had
been ill-bred, but in 1 8 1 6 it was Talleyrand, who had grossly
insulted a Minister of the Crown under the roof of a Foreign
Ambassador, and although many of the Royalists shared his
opinions nobody could excuse his conduct.

The scandal spread like wildfire through Paris and every
fresh report of the incident exaggerated the details. The
contemptuous term that Talleyrand had applied to Decazes
was magnified into a criminal libel. The story was carried
beyond Paris; all over France it was the only subject of
conversation, and versions of it appeared in the English
press. Of these Talleyrand felt obliged to take notice and he
caused to be published in London a letter addressed by him-
self to Lord Castlereagh. Phrased in admirable English
this letter so minimises the incident that it cannot carry con-
viction, and the appeal made in it to Mr. Tierney, who had
been present, to confirm its accuracy does not appear to
have met with any response.

The French Government felt compelled to take action.
A high dignitary of the Court could not be allowed to insult
with impunity the King’s Ministers. Some were for severe
measures and suggested depriving Talleyrand of his office.
Pasquier says that Mold was the chief of this party. Others
thought that a private reproof from the King would meet

290

RETIREMENT

the case. Pasquier insinuates that this was his opinion,
Richelieu chose a middle course. On the morning of 21st
November, three days after the eventful night, the First
Groom of the Chamber called at Rue St. Florentin with a
message to the effect that th.e Grand Chamberlain was for-
bidden to present himself at Court until further notice.

Disgrace of this nature might have extinguished one whose
political and social position was based upon feebler or more
recentfoundations. It made little difference to Talleyrand, but
it was felt and resented. Talleyrand was anxious from the first
to make his peace with Pasquier, and when Mold, who was
asked to act as intermediary, reported that Pasquier had no
wish to resume their former intimacy, the news came as a blow.

‘Madame Edmond de Pdrigord was at her uncle’s when I
returned. On learning that Pasquier was throwing over the
patronage of M, de 'Talleyrand her rage was such as I do
not ren^ember having seen in a woman, even in the street.
Her face was livid and she was trembling from head to foot.
Instead of replying to her abuse I turned my back to her
.and with an impassive face continued to address M. de
Talleyrand as if we had been alone. This made her weep
with rage and she looked ready to devour me. At the same
time I read in her uncle’s face and appearance that he never
could forgive me anymore that he could Pasquier. 'We separ-
ated coldly and politely, as one salutes with a drawn sword.’

But despite one or two defections of this nature, the
salon in the Rue St. Florentin remained as crowded and as
distinguished as ever. The Government was not popular
with the Royalists and just as the courtiers had left Versailles
to do homage to Choiscul in disgrace at Chanteloup so,
by the irony of political fortune, the house of Talleyrand
became the rendezvous for those who were most opposed to
the policy of conciliation which he had always advocated and
which his successors were endeavouring to put into force.

RETIREMENT

291

Nor was his banishment from Court of long duration.
In February of the following year, three months after the
date of the offence, Richelieu, with characteristic magnan-
imity, advised the King to revoke it. He thereupon resumed
his functions, the King received him with his customary
politeness, no reference was made to the unfortunate
incident, and the relations between monarch and Grand
Chamberlain were restored to their old footing of guarded
and distrustful civility.

3

In the five volumes of Talleyrand’s published memoirs
the fourteen years that divide 1815 from 1 8 30 are referred
to only in an appendix of twenty pages that deal with two
incidents, Savary’s accusation and Maubreuil’s assault, both
of which had their origin in events of an earlier period.
From the age therefore of sixty-one to seventy-six his part
was one of a spectator. The stage was filled by lesser actors,
the play was tame and dull. It merited all the scorn that
lay in the drooping corners of his mouth as he remembered
the tremendous drama of the past and the rble that he had
played in it. Nevertheless, so lasting is the fascination of the
footlights, there was not a moment during all those years
when he would not gladly have accepted an invitation to
quit the auditorium and to remount the boards.

But his existence was agreeable. The winters were passed
in Paris, the sufnmers at his chateau of Valenfay. He grew
mor^ and more attached to the home that he had visited so
little during the crowded years that lay behind him. There
wefe many improvements to be carried out there, the first
being to remove such traces as the Spanish Princes had
left of their occupation. The unwilling visitors had proved
bad tenants. One of them had devoted his leisure to design-
ing wolf-traps, had turned his bedroom into a workshop, and

RETIREMENT

292

had covered the walls with specimens of his craft. On one
occasion they had nearly burnt down the whole chateau as
the result of holding an auto-da-f^ of the complete works of
Voltaire and Rousseau.

Talleyrand took a keen interest in the local affairs of
that quiet countryside, where the post from Paris arrived
only twice a week. Having been for so long an absentee
landlord he was determined to compensate by benevolence
for the years of neglect. He endowed the church with a
belfry, he set up an almshouse, inaugurated a girls’ school,
opened a pharmacy where the poor could obtain medicaments
without payment, and finally he became Mayor of the little
town, retained the office for six years and when he relinquished
it continued to act as a member of the municipal council.

His life in the country, however, was hardly what an
Englishman would describe as country life. He retained his
custom of rising late and spending some hours over his
toilet. Dinner, in the early afternoon, was the main event of
the day, and the fare that was provided at Valenqay was
equal in excellence to that of the Rue St. Florentin, where his
table was reputed to be the finest in Paris. The celebrated
cook, CarSme, whose ambition it was to ‘raise his profession
to the status of an art,’ pays a tribute, in his memoirs, to all
that he learnt in the kitchen of the Rue St. Florentin, where
he laid the basis of his European reputation and where his
talents were brought to the notice of the Emperor of Russia
and Lord Charles Stewart so that the gourmets of St.
Petersburg and London vied with one another for the
privilege of securing his services.

We owe to Lady Shelley the following account of a meal
at Talleyrand’s house, ‘During the whole repast the general
conversation was upon eating. Every dish was discussed
and the antiquity of every bottle of wine supplied the
jnost eloquent annotations. Talleyrand himself analysed the

RETIREMENT

293

dinner with as much interest and seriousness as if he had
been discussing some political question of importance.’

After dinner the Prince would drive in the long avenues
of his vast estate. He would give orders for improvements
and plantations, and would see to it that the woods were
stocked with game and the rivers with fish for the entertain-
ment of his sporting friends. So far as outdoor pleasures
were concerned lameness and age restricted his activities to
driving, but life within the chateau was rendered as cheerful as
possible by every forrn of entertainment. Charades and private
theatricals usually celebrated great occasions. Reading aloud
was popular. While remaining faithful to the great masters
of the seventeenth century he did not neglect contemporary
literature. He was too much a child of the eighteenth century
fully to appreciate the Romantics, but on being lent the first
published volume of Lamartine’s poetry, which appeared
anonymously, he lay awake until four in the morning read-
ing it, and prophesied a great future for the unknown author.

He was always reluctant to go to bed and the lights of
Valen^ay burnt into the small hours of the morning. Every
man loves to exercise his own talents and one whose con-
versation had long been acknowledged to be his supreme
gift, who had found a willing audience so many years ago
in the drawing-rooms of Madame Dubarry, was sure never
to lack listeners now when his talk in addition to Its natural
charm provided exclusive and authentic -information con-
cerning the history of Europe for half a century.

It was therefore not surprising that there was seldom a
shortage of visitors. If there had been the members of the
household would have filled the gap. A doctor, an almoner,
a tutor, musicians, agents, and lawyers were always in
attendance, giving to the place something of the appearance
of a little Court, and recalling the quasi-royalty which had
once pertained to the Prince of Eenevento.

294 RETIREMENT

Whatever other form of distraction the chateau had to
offer, an evening seldom passed without the Prince being
drawn to the card table. ‘What a sad old age you are preparing
for yourself,’ he observed to a young lady who could not play
cards; and during these long years of inactivity many were the
hours that whist and piquet assisted him to pass agreeably.

Although the greater part of his time was thus spent
between Paris and Valen9ay hardly a year passed without an
expedition further afield. He had long since formed the
habit of visiting, during the summer months, Bourbon
I’Archambault, a small watering-place in the centre of
France. In more strenuous times, when he had been a
Minister of Napoleon, his health had required the change
and repose that the place afforded. Delightfully situated in
a slight hollow among gently rolling hills, the little spa had
won his affection and he benefited from the treatment that
he received there. He was always happy at Bourbon. In the
old days his secretaries had marked how lightly he threw off
the cares of office when he arrived there and how gracefully the
formidable statesman would become a pleasant holiday com-
panion with the humblest of them. His letters confirm such
evidence. He always writes cheerfully from Bourbon. What-
ever he may be thinking of the Government of the day, he finds
there other things to amuse him. On one occasion he com-
plains that 'nobody writes to Bourbon’ — and adds— ‘however,
we have got some*new paralytics who arrived recently. There
is not, this year, a single rheumatism of our acquaintance.’

Although he remained singularly faithful to Bourbon, he
frequently made the experiment of visiting some new
locality during the annual excursion. For three years in
succession from 1817 he visited the Pyrenees; in 1825 he
spent the summer in Switzerland, the end of the year at
Marseilles and the beginning of the next at Hyeres, and in
1829 he went to Aix-la-Chapclle.

RETIREMENT

295

He did not travel alone. Henceforward until the end of
his life the Duchess of Dino was always at his side. At
Valen^ay, at the Rue St. Florentin, and afterwards at the
French Embassy in London she acted for him as hostess.
Her natural dignity and her long experience of courts and of
diplomatic society equipped her admirably for the task.
And she enjoyed it. Count Mol^ who at first disliked her
but later fell under her charm, believed, as has been stated,
that her dominant passion was to play an important part in
the life of a prominent statesman. This theory accounts
partly, but only partly, for her devotion to Talleyrand.
During the fifteen. years of his exclusion from public life
there were other and younger -statesmen who would not
have disdained an Egeria who brought beauty, intelligence,
wealth, and independence, owning in her own right vast
estates in Germany where she exercised semi-royal pre-
rogatives. Hostile as well as friendly critics pay tribute to
her large dark eyes which were said to be the loveliest in
France; and the rapidity of her mind, the swiftness with
which she took a point was the quality which particularly
astonished and delighted Talleyrand.

Her husband, Edmond, had long since ceased to play any
part in her life. He was a spendthrift and his debts were a con-
tinual source of anxiety to the family. The marriage had been
one of convenience from the first, and as no tenderness had
ever united the young couple so now no rancour apparently
divided them. She had borne him two sons who would carry
on the ancient name and presumably inherit the wealth of
their great-uncle. She had not lived in the same house as her
husband for man)^ years but in 1820 there was a somewhat
ostentatious reconciliation. "Later in the same year she
bore a third child, a daughter, who received the name of
Pauline.

Madame de Souza wrote to her son, the Count de Flahaut,

RETIREMENT

296

in August, ‘M. de Montrond has come back from Valen^ay
bored to such a point that one yawns even to hear him speak
of it. Madame Dorothea has become mystical. Poor
Edmond is a pitiable spectator of this pregnancy conferred
by the grace of God. He fears his uncle may force him to
stay in bed when Dorothea is delivered. He sees their minds
so inclined to believe in miracles that for all he knows he
may be asked to suckle the infant.’

Edmond’s troubles were soon over. When he had
recognised the child as his he returned to his own way of
living with no doubt a fresh lease of credit for the accumula-
tion of debts. The true parentage was generally attributed
to Talleyrand, and his devotion to the little girl, the delight-
ful letters that he wrote to her long before she could read
them, his care of her education and anxiety for her health,
all suggest that he believed himself to be her father. There
seems to be no reason to doubt it, although in view of the
difference of ages and his previous relations with the
Duchess of Courland many people would prefer to persuade
themselves that the whole affair between Talleyrand and
Dorothea was platonic. Such self-persuasion no doubt
afforded some consolation to a large number of extremely
respectable and highly conventional people who frequented
their society both in France and in England.

There was more often than not a third on their travels.
The Countess Tyszkiewicz, whom Talleyrand' had met at
Warsaw in 1807 and whose pretty niece, the Countess
Potocka, had visited Paris in 1 8 1 2, . remained his faithful
admirer until the end. She took a house in Paris in the same
street as his, and she had her own apartments in the west
wing at Valenfay. She was only eight years his junior and
so no shadow of jealousy was likely to mar her relations with
the Duchess of Dino. When the three of them travelled
together they sometimes moved in separate detachments, as

RETIREMENT

297

inns on the road were too small to accommodate them all
with their retinue of attendants. On such occasions Talley-
rand would arrive last so that the hotel-keeper would have
received full instructions for his comfort before his arrival.

4

If there be truth in the saying that a man may be judged
by his friends, those who take the least favourable view of
Talleyrand’s character will find it difhcult to account for the
presence of some of those who, during his latter years, were
most frequently in his company. The most prominent of his
country neighbours was Royer-Collard, a man who, if he
had not been a Royalist and a Catholic, might almost be
described as the John Bright of French politics. The
austerity of his virtue, both in private and in public life,
was the subject of general admiration. His loyalty to the
throne and the sincerity of his religious faith were equalled
only by the independence of his mind and by his complete
indifference to self-interest. He said once that the sight of a
married priest gave, him a sensation of nausea, and Talley-
rand’s first suggestion of paying a call was coldly repelled
on the ground that Madame Royer-Collard’s health would
not permit her to return it. But Talleyrand was not to be
put off so easily. He came all the same and on arriving after
a twelve-miles drive on an execrable road his first words
were: ‘Sir, you are indeed a difficult man to approach’—
{Monsieur, vous avez des abords bien sivhres). From that day
forward relations between the two houses became intimate.
To the astonishment of many, who revered Royer-Collard
as much as they abominated Talleyrand, a strong and lasting
friendship sprang up between the two. A few years before
Talleyrand’s ideath Royer-Collard wrote to him: ‘You know
the place that you have occupied in my life for many years,

RETIREMENT

298

a place that nobody else can fill. You are the only remaining
one of the race of giants.'

Amable de Barante was a man of the same type as Royer-
Collard, whose political biography he wrote. As a young
auditor he first met Talleyrand at Posen during the Prussian
campaign of 1806. It was his duty to go on to Warsaw to
make the necessary billeting arrangements. Talleyrand be-
spoke his good service with the result that he reserved for
him a large private house that contained the only bed with
curtains in Warsaw. The friendship begun under such
favourable auspices lasted until death, and it was Barante,
the austere historian of the Dukes of Burgundy, who pro-
nounced Talleyrand’s funeral oration in the House of Peers.

Another friend, whose acquaintance he first made in 1822,
was young Monsieur Thiers. The public lives of the two
cover a century of French history. They formed a striking
contrast in conversation. The animated little bourgeois,
bursting with eagerness and volubility, and the phlegmatic
aristocrat, with his long disdainful silences and polished
epigrams, were each in their way admirable representatives
of the two centuries to which they belonged. Thiers com-
plained once that when he wished to talk politics Talleyrand
would turn the conversation on to the subject of women.
‘But,’ replied Talleyrand, ‘women are politics.’ He called
Thiers ‘an urchin of genius.’

It may have been an article of the latter’s which defended
the painting of Delacroix that first secured him an invitation to
the Rue St. Florentin, Delacroix, like many great painters,
was provoking more opposition than approval. His methods,
revolutionary at the time, were denounced by the pundits, but,
despite their denunciation, his pictures were frequently pur-
chased by the State. Government patronage of art is gener-
ally on conservative lines, and some of those who wondered
at the exception made in favour of Delacroix noticed also

RETIREMENT 299

his striking resemblance to the old Grand Chamberlain who,
even when out of office, continued to exercise influence.

The young Duke de Broglie, whose first vote in the House
of Peers was given against the condemnation of Marshal Ney,
was another regular member of Talleyrand’s circle. He had
married the daughter of Madame de Stafil. His principles
were those of an English Whig, and, during a long life, he was
never suspected of acting from any but the loftiest motives.

The society therefore that Talleyrand collected round
him was as respectable as it was distinguished. Perhaps it
was not so gay nor quite so amusing as that which the Abbd de
Pdrigord frequented before the Revolution. It was certainly
less mixed and more moral than that which was entertained by
the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his mistress in the days
of the Directory. But times had changed. The eighteenth
century was over, little Princess Victoria was growing up
in England and already immorality was frowned upon in the
best society.

S

Meanwhile the strength of the restored Bourbon mon-
archy was being gradually undermined by the activities of
its keenest supporters. Just as the Revolution had been
frustrated by the Jacobins so the Ultras were determined
to destroy, in their blind folly, the hopes of the royal family
whom they served. In vain Louis xviii endeavoured to restrain
them. His influence was weakened by the fact that it was
his brother and his heir upon whom they relied for support.

The Minister who seemed most capable of assisting the
King was Richelieu, who combined a great name with con-
siderable ability and complete lack of personal ambition.
But he had one quality which, while deserving the moralist’s
approval, will always be a doubtful asset to the politician.
There are many who say, when they are conducting affairs

300

RETIREMENT

of state, that they would far sooner be enjoying the ease of
private life. Few mean it. Richelieu did. However pure a
man’s patriotism may be, he will not perform best the task
that is distasteful to him. Richelieu was always longing for
the hour of his release. He hated intrigue. He was ever
more ready to show generosity an opponent than to do a
job for a friend. The highest compliment that he could pay
to a supporter was to offer him nothing in the way of office
or honours, thus showing his confidence in the man’s
integrity— a compliment which, even by the most dis-
interested, was sometimes accepted without enthusiasm.

When Richelieu threatened resignation the argument
most frequently employed by those who sought to dissuade
him was that if he went he would be forcing the King to
send for Talleyrand. During the years that Louis continued
to reign Talleyrand was always the undesirable alternative.
While the fall of Napoleon was followed by a remarkable
outburst of genius in the spheres of literature and art, there
seemed to be a singular lack of talent in the arena of politics.
The Ultras could produce no man of marked ability; the
Doctrinaires were what their name denotes and nothing
more; and Richelieu looked in vain among his own sup-
porters for a successor. It was inevitable therefore that when
a change of government was suggested men’s minds should
turn towards Talleyrand, whose competence and experience
so far exceeded that of all his contemporaries. Nor could
anyone accuse him of suffering from Richelieu’s failing—
the dislike of office. He shared the view of those who con-
sidered his return to power inevitable, and spared no pains
to ensure that it should take place at the earliest moment.
What he hoped to achieve was a Ministry that should include
all parties. To this end he continued his efforts to win the
confidence of the Ultras and at the same time made overtures
to Decazes which were well received despite the violence of

RETIREMENT

301

his previous attacks. But unfortunately for his hopes there
were two people whom he could not win, the leader of the
Ultras and the patron of Decazes.

At the end of the year i S18 Richelieu resigned and Mol^
went with him. Decazes was left master of the situation.
It was generally expected that he would advise the King to
send for Talleyrand, but whether because Louis himself
refused to adopt this course or whether because, as Mole
suggests, Decazes and his friends were afraid that, having
once placed Talleyrand on their backs, they might find him
too difficult to dislodge, the decision was taken to make
General Dessolles President of the Council.

The new Government had an uneasy existence of less
than twelve months. They sought to win the support of the
Bonapartlsts and the Liberals, but although the Presideht
of the Council had been a General of the Empire, and al-
though Decazes used all his arts to please the middle
classes, .they only succeeded in uniting the extremes of
Right and Left in opposition. Mol^ was so little pleased
with them that he confided to Richelieu his regret that
Talleyrand had not succeeded him. Throughout the year
it was expected that Talleyrand would be invited to
strengthen the tottering Ministry by joining it, while
Ministers themselves believed that their opponents were
plotting with Talleyrand to bring about their fall. At the
end of the year the General resigned, and the favourite who
was already the power behind the Government as well as
behind the throne, openly assumed the highest office. This
was the end of Talleyrand’s hopes of a coalition with Decazes
who, during the few months that he remained in power,
seemed more inclined to turn to Richelieu for assistance.

But the ministerial days of Decazes were numbered. The
fight that he and his master had fought against the forces
of reaction was doomed to failure. On 13th February 182.0

302

RETIREMENT

the Duke of Berry was assassinated at the opera. The
Duchessj while her husband was breathing his last, pointed
an accusing finger at Decazes, and cried: ‘It is he who is the
real assassin.’ The hysteria of a distraught woman became
the accepted view of the political party that had long been
opposing the policy of the favourite. Feeling was so violent
that the Royalists plotted to coerce the monarch and to
impose upon him by force a Minister of their own choosing.
Their choice was Talleyrand and some may regret that the
plot did not materialise. Believers in the divine right of
kings compelling the descendant of St. Louis to accept as
Minister the renegade priest and married bishop who had
defended the proceedings of loth August 1792, would
have provided a memorable incident for those who ap-
preciate the irony of history.

• How far the conspiracy went, and how deeply Talleyrand
was involved in it are questions which, owing to insufficient
evidence, must remain unanswered. Vitrolles is . said to
have been the principal conspirator, but Vitrolles was
deeply in the confidence of the Q)unt d’Artois and it was
the action of the latter which defeated the scheme. He
went himself to Richelieu, against whom he had persistently
intrigued, and implored him on patriotic grounds to return
to office. Richelieu was ill in bed, but despite his extreme
reluctance, when the Count gave him his word of honour,
‘the word of a Prince to a gentleman,’ that he would loyally
support him, he consented to resume the burden. Louis
sadly parted with Decazes whom he made a duke and sent as
Ambassador to London, and the hopes of Talleyrand were
disappointed once more.

Richelieu’s second administration lasted less than two
years. The ‘word of a prince’ was soon broken. The old
alliance between extremists on both wings rendered the
attempt to govern on moderate and constitutional lines

RETIREMENT

303

impossible. When it became plain, towards the end of 1 82 1,
that Richelieu would resign, Talleyrand, untaught by experi-
ence, believed again that his time had come.’ He sought out
Mol^ whom he wished to include in his Cabinet. All the
places were already allotted. Mol^ listened to his plans
without allowing him to see that ‘I was humouring his
ambitious dreams in the way one treats women or children.’
His chances were, in reality, slighter than ever. In addition
to the factors that had previously defeated him there were
two new features of the situation unfavourable to his hopes.
The first was the influence of Madame du Cayla, who had
replaced Decazes in the King’s affections, and the second
was the increased suspicion with which he was regarded as
the friend of England and the advocate of a pro-English
policy. When therefore Richelieu resigned it was Villele who
succeeded him. VilRle had appeared in Paris as a member
of the Incomparable Chamber and had been an Ultra from
the first. He was on the best of terms with the Count
d’Artois. ‘The two brothers have embraced,’ commented
MoR, ‘and Louis xvin seems to have resigned in favour of
Charles x,’ ‘

6

The appointment of Villele was the turning point in the
history of the Restoration. It marked the final triumph of
the Ultras, the slamming of the door on constitutional
government. For Talleyrand it meant, not only the end of
his own hopes of ofiice under the existing regime but also
the beginning of a new period of liberal opposition. He
had sought the support of the Ultras as a stepping-stone to
power. He had failed to obtain if, but if he had succeeded we
may be sure that he would not have used power for purposes
of reaction. He knew to what end such policy was bound to
lead. In 1 8 1 7 he wrote that the two solid bases of lasting peace

RETIREMENT

304

were legitimacy and reasonable liberty. ‘Everything that is
done on those principles will be in accord with the ideas of the
age, and one must always move, and move prudently, with
one’s age.’ From 1821 onwards the restored monarchy was
moving not with but against the ideas of the age. Therefore it
was doomed to fail. Talleyrand knew it, and acted accordingly.

In the summer before the fall of the Richelieu Govern-
ment a bill was introduced which considerably restricted
the liberty of the press. To oppose such a measure at such
a time was to court unpopularity. Yet Talleyrand stayed in
Paris on purpose to speak and to vote against the bill. When
announcing his intention to do so in a letter to the Duchess
of Courland, he added: ‘One must be true to the doctrines
one has professed all one’s life.’

In the speecli which he made on "this occasion he again
laid stress on the importance of acting in harmony with the
spirit of the age. His two main propositions were, first,
that the liberty of the press was a necessity of the age, and,
second, that a Government endangers its existence when it
refuses obstinately and for too long to permit what the age
proclaims to be necessary. He applied this principle to the
Revolution, daring even to maintain that despite its errors
it had accomplished much that was good. . The Revolution,
he said, was in accord with the age when it proclaimed
religious liberty, equality before the law, liberty of the
individual, trial by jury, and liberty of the press; but it was
no longer in accord, with the age when it set up a single
chamber, when it destroyed royal authority, and 'when it
tortured conscience. In the most famous passage of his
speech he used words strangely suggestive of those that an
American President was to use long afterwards and make
famous. ‘In our time it is not easy to deceive for long.’
Forty years later Abraham Lincoln discovered that one
could not fool all the people all the time. ‘There is some-

RETIREMENT

30s

one,’ Talleyrand went on, ‘who is cleverer than Voltaire,
cleverer than Bonaparte, cleverer than any of the Directors,
than any Minister in the past or in the future; and that
person is everybody (tout le monde). To engage, or at
least to persist, in a struggle in which you may find everybody
interested on the other side is a mistake, and nowadays all
political mistakes are dangerous.’

At no time was Talleyrand so open to the charge of being
false to his political principles as when he sought to
curry favour with the Ultras at the expense of Louis xvin’s
more moderate Ministers. That he did attempt to do so in
order to return to power is undeniable, but no overt act or
public utterance can be cited in evidence against him. On
the contrary, at the very moment when Richelieu was
tottering to his fall, when for the first time it seemed, as it
proved, certain that the voice of the Ultras would decide
the selection of the next Minister, Talleyrand came boldly
forward and proclaimed his unshaken faith in the principles
that he had upheld in 1789. In that famous year of great
ideals he had not been an idealist, but he had laid hold upon
all that he could find in the programme of the reformers
that was compatible with common sense. To the gospel of
common sense he remained true. The language of common
sense he had always spoken, and after his long experience
and deep study of events that language, as he spoke it,
seemed full of the deepest political wisdom, and fraught with
prescience.

Talleyrand maintained that he had never abandoned any-
one until they had first abandoned themselves. During the
years that followed the gulf dividing him from the Bourbon
kings became steadily wider. It might, however, well be
argued that it was they, not he, who were responsible, that
his position was stationary while they were always moving
V

RETIREMENT

306

towards the right, away from the principles upon which
their restoration had been based.

One of Villele’s first actions was to introduce a measure
by which all offences connected with the press were no
longer to be referred to a jury but to be dealt with by
magistrates of the royal courts. Again Talleyrand spoke
against the bill. He was followed by the Duke of Fitz-
James who made a very violent personal attack upon him,
referring bitterly to the course he had pursued during the
Revolution and under the Empire. All eyes were fixed on
Talleyrand who leant forward in his seat listening with the
closest attention but without betraying the slighest emotion. ■
Occasionally he would take a note, but when the speech was
finished he tossed his notes away, turned to a neighbour and
nonchalantly observed that really M. de Fitz-Jamcs had a
great deal of talent; that there were perhaps a few things in
what he had said which were a little harsh {des petites chases
un peu acerbes\ but that otherwise it was a very good speech.

In 1823 France went to war with Spain in order to assist
King Ferdinand, once Talleyrand’s unwilling guest at
Valen^ay, to break (he promise that he had given to his own
people that he would govern as a constitutional monarch.
Chateaubriand, who was Minister for' Foreign Affairs at
the time, claimed all the credit for having brought about one
of the least defensible wars in history. Talleyrand disliked
war and he disliked interfering in the domestic affairs of
other nations. In the speech which he prepared for the
debate ' on this question, he claimed to have opposed
Napoleon’s Peninsular policy from the first and to have
earned his disgrace by his opposition. Chateaubriand has
described in his memoirs, how, while listening to this speech,
he felt almost stunned by Talleyrand’s power of falsehood,
how his eyes followed him as he returned impassively from

RETIREMENT

307

the tribune to his seat, and how he felt torn between a kind
of horror and a kind of admiration.

We have previously had occasion to question the accuracy
of Chateaubriand’s testimony where Talleyrand is concerned.
Unfortunately for the apostle of truth as against the master
of falsehood we know for certain that the speech which it
shocked him so to hear was never delivered. The debate
was closured before Talleyrand was called, but, according
to the custom of the French Upper Chamber at the time,
undelivered speeches were printed in the records, and it
was presumably in this manner that Chateaubriand became
acquainted with the text.

Soon afterwards Chateaubriand quarrelled with his col-
leagues, as he quarrelled with everybody, and resigned his
office. He was appointed for a short time Ambassador to
Italy but he played no further part in politics. On hearing
somebody remark that Chateaubriand had grown very deaf,
Talleyrand observed; ‘He only thinks he is deaf because
he can no longer hear anyone talking about him.’

7

Chateaubriand, sixteen years younger than Talleyrand,
was to outlive him, but meanwhile the circle of his con-
temporaries was being annually reduced in numbers.
Choiseul, the earliest of his friends, between whom and him-
self during more than half a century affection had survived
many differences of opinion, died in 1817. ‘He was the
last,’ wrote Talleyrand, ‘of the people with whom I was
brought up. Of that generation I remain almost the only
survivor: it is most sad.’

The same year saw the deaths of Madame de StaSl and
of Dupont de Nemours. Of the latter Talleyrand wrote: ‘I
have been associated with him since my early youth. The

RETIREMENT

308

losses that befall me every day attach me the more to the
people that I love.’

The year i8ai besides disappointing Talleyrand’s political
hopes brought to him many private sorrows. In August
died the Duchess of Courland. He had loved her passion-
ately, At an age when passion might have passed from both
their lives it flared up again in him and it was her own
daughter who had inspired it. It is not pleasant to think
of the sufferings of one who sees herself replaced in the
affections of the man she loves by her own child. Madame de
Boigne writes of the Duchess’s ‘despair’ but she appears to
have given no outward sign ofit. She continued in regular and
affectionate correspondence with Talleyrand till the last and
after she was dead he wrote: T shall mourn for her until
my last day, which I see approaching now without regret.’

His uncle, the aged Cardinal, died in October, and in
December he lost Madame de Rdmusat whose friendship he
had made in the early, glorious days of the Consulate, when
together they were attendant upon Bonaparte and Josephine
during their triumphant tour through Belgium. No cloud
had ever cast its shadow over that happy, half-amorous
friendship of nearly twenty years.

It was autumn in Talleyrand’s life. All round him the
leaves were falling; now and then some great tree came
down with a crash that resounded through the forest. In
this same year, 1821', Napoleon died at St. Helena. When
the news was reported in the crowded drawing-room of
Madame Crawford — it was the ephemeral centre of Parisian
fashion, and Wellington was there at the time— a momentary
hush fell on the chattering groups. ‘What an event!' was the
inevitable if inadequate comment that broke the silence; but
from a corner of the room the deep voice of Talleyrand made
answer: ‘It is no longer an event, it is only a piece of news.’

Richelieu died a year later.' The Bourbons whom he had

RETIREMENT

309

served so faithfully would not even go to his funeral. Never
in this world has honesty been worse rewarded, Talleyrand,
who had done him no honour during his life, believed that
his death was a public calamity and gave him, perhaps
grudgingly, an epitaph that was quoted through Paris at
the time, and is still remembered: ^C'Stait quelqu'un' (He
was somebody).

Louis xvni died in 1824. His death effected no change
in the political situation. Sihce he had fallen under the
influence of Madame du Cayla, who was herself under the
influence of the Ultras, his views had ceased to differ from
those of his successor. He was buried without the omission
of a single ceremony that ten centuries of feudal tradition
had accumulated round the throne of France. After the
coffin had been lowered into the vault four dukes cast
upon it the colours of the four companies of the Guards.
The crown, the sceptre, and the hand of justice were thrown
after them. Then followed the spurs, the breastplate, the
sword, the shield, and the gauntlets which the warrior king
would have worn if ever he had led his armies to battle. But
the last homage of all was performed by the aged Grand
Chamberlain, who with great dignity limped to the edge
of the open vault and lowered the standard of France over
the coffin.

Talleyrand had an equally important part to perform at
the coronation of Charles x, which took place in the following
May. By all accounts he performed these duties with
singular distinction. Charles x was crowned in the cathedral
at Rheims. Talleyrand had been present there at the
coronation of Louis xvi in 1775. Much had happened
since then.

The leaves were falling. The Emperor Alexander, still
young in years but old in disillusion, died in 1825. No

310 RETIREMENT

reconciliation had ever taken place between him and
Talleyrand.

In 1826 the funeral of Talma, the great actor who had
refused to the last to receive the offices of the Church, was
made the occasion for an anti-religious demonstration, a
significant symptom of the way in which the wind was
beginning to blow in a country where clerical influence was
becoming daily more dominant.

Canning, who had been on friendly terms with Talleyrand,
died in 1827, not before he had, in response to Chateau-
briand’s policy in Spain, ‘called the new world into exist-
ence to redress the balance of the old’ — a development
which, as we have seen, Talleyrand 'had himself suggested
some thirty years earlier.

In 1828 another death occurred which was a cause of
regret to Talleyrand. A friend was surprised one day to
hear him deplore the demise of the Duke of San Carlos.
Talleyrand explained. ‘You see, the Duke of San Carlos
was my wife’s lover; he was a man of honour and gave her
good advice, which she needed. Now I don’t know Into whose
hands she may fall.’

8

In 1827 there occurred an incident which created con-
siderable stir in Paris at the time. Every year on the
anniversary of the execution of Louis xvi a religious cere-
mony took place in the basilica of St. Denis. Talleyrand,
in virtue of his office, naturally assisted at this function.
This year, after the ceremony was over, and the Grand
Chamberlain had conducted the members of the royal
family to their carriages, an unknown man suddenly forced
his way through the throng and advancing on the Grand
Chamberlain dealt him a blow in the face with the
palm of his hand. The old man— he was seventy-three, and

RETIREMENT

311

very lame— fell to the ground. Those standing round hurried
to his assistance, helped him to rise and supported him to his
carriage, while his assailant was apprehended by the police.

The n^ame of the man was Maubreuil. He had been in
prison for an attack made on the Queen of Westphalia, wife
of King Jerome, during the unsettled days of 1814, when
Talleyrand was head of the Provisional Government. The
attack had been made on the high road, where he had held
up her carriage and had got away with a large sum of money
in gold and much valuable jewellery. He had claimed when
arrested to have been acting as an agent for Talleyrand who,
he further alleged, had commissioned him to murder
Napoleon. That Talleyrand could have given such a com-
mission to such a man no sensible person, even at the
time, believed. Maubreuil, who was an unbalanced and
violent man of notoriously bad character, admitted that he
had never had a personal interview with Talleyrand who had
always acted through an intermediary. It is possible that
some third party in that dark underworld which was the
police system of the time may for some private purpose
have persuaded this scatterbrained swashbuckler that Talley-
rand was making use of his services. At his trial he delivered
a violent diatribe not only against Talleyrand, whom he
accused of poisoning Mirabeau amongst other crimes, but
also against many of the most distinguished people of the
time, including the Emperor of Russia, whom he described
as ‘the son of a murderer and a murderer hirnself.’ The
individual suffering from a grievance who accuses well-
known people of crimes, is still not an uncommon phen-
omenon in the law courts. Whether the asylum or the
prison is the proper place for such people is an open question.
Maubreuil was sent to the latter for two years.

On the day of the assault Paris hummed with the news,
and the gossip-mongers hurried round to the Rue St.

312

RETIREMENT

Florentin to express their condolences and collect their
material. Talleyrand might have been suffering from shock
' — it was an unpleasant experience for a man of his age —
but he was swift to devise his plan of campaign. A gentle-
man cannot have his face slapped, but anybody may be
the victim of a murderous assault. It was important as
ever that the right version should be the first to get abroad.
So the doors of the Rue St. Florentin were open to all
callers. They found the old Prince stretched upon a couch,
his head swathed in volumincnis bandages. He was ready to
explain to all what had happened and insisted that it had been
an attempt at assassination. Clenching his fist and imitating
the action of one who strikes down from above, he kept
repeating the phrase: ‘He felled me like an ox.’

Although the accounts of those who had witnessed the
scene did not tally exactly with his who had been the victim
of it, still there was a feeling of general sympathy for one
who, whatever wrong he might have committed in the past,
was becoming more and more every year a traditional and
legendary figure among the society into which he had
survived, a relic of, and a link with, the past.

Pasquier, who had not spoken to him since the scene at
the British Embassy, called to inquire, and the two old men
were reconciled, Pasquier’s heart had no doubt been
touched by the misfortune of his former friend, but Pasquier
was also one whose principal business it was to detect any
alteration in the weathercpck. In 1827 the wind was
beginning to vary. The elder branch of the Bourbon family
were slow to notice such changes. The Duke of Orleans was
living in England, a country where Talleyrand had always
had friends, and the Count de Montrond was spending
more time than ever on that side of the Channel, gambling
and drinking very ostentatiously, and— less ostentatiously —
keeping in touch.

Chapter Thirteen

THE LONDON EMBASSY

I

Louis xviii once said of Kis younger brother; ‘He conspired
against Louis xvi, he has conspired against me, some day
he will conspire against himself.’ The prophecy came true,
and this last conspiracy, to which Charles x devoted the
greater part of his reign, was the most successful. His
Ministers, although they were all drawn from the ranks of
the Ultras and were convinced reactionaries, could never be
Ultra or reactionary enough for the extreme right wing of
their own party. Extremists, to whatever camp they belong,
are the disease germs in the body politic. They can never
create, but when the general health of the body is weak,
they can bring destruction. They are reckless as to the
means they employ, and because their passion-blinded eyes
can discern no difference between the most moderate and
the most violent of those who differ from them, they are
ready to combine with the latter in order to defeat the
former. So during the reign of Charles x the extreme
Royalists, whom even the reactionary measures of Villele
could not satisfy, combined with the Liberals to render the
task of Government impossible, and in doing so they felt,
more often than not, that they had the secret approval of the
King himself.

Interference with the liberty of the press, against which
Talleyrand had warned the restored monarchy in 1814, in
1821, and in 1822, continued to exercise a fatal fascination

313

314 THE LONDON EMBASSY

for Ministers.’ In 1826 Villele brought forward a law by
which nothing might be printed that had not been sub-
.mitted to the Government for approval five days before
publication. CasiiAir Perier said that they might as Well
simply suppress printing in France for the benefit of
Belgium. Chateaubriand even, now one of the extreme
reactionaries, said it was a law of barbarism. Talleyrand’s
comment was terse: ‘It is not French, because it is silly.’

The alliance between the extreme Royalists and the
Liberals drove VilRle from office after six years. He ■?pas
succeeded by Martignac, who attempted to pursue a similar
policy, and who was defeated by similar means. The King,
who had rendered Martignac’s task impossiWe by with-
holding his loyal support, then decided to choose a Minister
after his own heart. Jules de Polignac was a fanatip. He
had risked his life— and nearly lost it— for the Royalist
cause in the days of the Consulate. His faith in his master’s
divine right was unfaltering, and he believed that if he
relied upon divine guidance he could not fail. His mind was
always made up, even when he had no idea what he was
going to do. After the revolution which he had provoked
was in full swing, he assured the King that it was only a
riot — and added that if he should prove to be wrong he
would give his head in expiation of his mistake. ‘Not much
of a present that,’ was the comment of the Duchess de
Gontaut whon Charles informed her of the pledge.

The Polignac Ministry took office in August 1829,
Talleyrand spent that autumn at Valenpay, returning for a
short visit to Paris and leaving again at the end of Nov-
ember for Rochecotte, a small chateau in Touraine which
he had given to the Duchess of Dmo in 1825. Hither in
December came Thiers accompanied by Armand Carrel,
that brilliant young writer and politician whose life of
promise ended miserably in a duel seven years later, Thiers

THE LONDON EMBASSY 315

and Carrel were determined to fight the Government. They
could only do so through the press, but the policy of intimida-
tion was beginning to produce its effect upon editors, and
they could find no organ of publicity that was bold enough
to suit their taste. So tihey had decided to produce a paper
of their own. Funds were all that they lacked, and it was for,
funds that they had come to Talleyrand.

We can picture the scene. Candlelight during the long
December evenings in the charmingly situated chateau on
the banks of the Loire : the two young men eagerly pouring
forth their plans and prospects before the impassive veteran
of conspiracy whose weary, sunken eyes would turn now-
and then from their animated faces to that of his lovely
hostess bending over her needlework. Carrel was twenty-
nine,' Thiers thirty-two, Dorothea thirty-five, and Talleyrand
seventy-seven. Perhaps the old man’s mind travelled back
to nights of conspiracy, before Brumaire, when young
General Bonaparte talked as eagerly as they did now, and
was as full of plans and prospects and hope.

They won their cause. The money was forthcoming.
The new review was to be called the NationaL The first
number appeared in January 1830, and for the next seven
months it continued to be a thorn in the side of the Govern-
ment,

2

At the end of July the storm burst. The importance of
the part played by the National was recognised in the
‘ celebrated Ordinances issued by the Polignac Ministry
which, besides dissolving the newly elected Chamber before
it met and interfering with the freedom of election, sought
to abolish once and for all the liberty ef the press. Paris
sprang to arms. Once more the tocsin sounded and the
tricolour flag was hoisted over the towers of Notrc-Dame.

3i6 the LONDON EMBASSY

Charles x continued to hunt at St, Cloud as Louis xvi had
hunted at Versailles on 5th October 1789. The Duke of
Orleans lurked unobtrusively in the suburbs. In the Rue St.
Florentin, in the very heart of the town, Talleyrand played
whist, watching and listening. When the sound of street
fighting, of bells ringing, and of cheering drifted through his
window, he exclaimed: 'Hark, we are winning.’ ‘We, who
are we.?’ they asked. ‘Hush,’ he replied, ‘not a word, I will
tell you to-morrow.’

His house commanded the Rue de Rivoli and the Place
de la Concorde. During these eventful July days he spent
much time looking out of the window. The Duke de
Broglie saw him from the street and on going inside found
the British^ Ambassador and many of the leading Liberals.
Madame Adelaide, the Duke of Orleans’ sister, went for an
adventurous walk with Madame de Boigne. The two
ladies, heavily veiled, each took an arm of the latter’s butler.
As they passed the Rue St. Florentin the Princess preferred
to take the centre, in order the better to escape observation.
‘I don’t want the lame old man to see me,’ she said, ‘he is so
intelligent that he is capable of recognising me from his
window.’

On 29th July Talleyrand sent a message to the Duke of
Orleans to the effect that he should come to Paris at once
and put himself at the head of the movement. The Duke
accepted the advice. On the 30th Charles x left Saint
Cloud for Rambouillet. ‘It is not I who have abandoned
the King,’ said Talleyrand, ‘it is the King who has aban-
doned us.’

On the 31st, early in the morning, representatives of the
group who were controlling events from the Hbtel de Ville
came to the Palais- Royal to offer the leadership to the Duke
of Orleans. Again he hesitated. Again the future of France
hung in the balance while a messenger hurried down the

THE LONDON EMBASSY 317

Rue. de Rivoli to ask the advice of the aged statesman in the
Rue St. Florentin. ‘Let him accept,’ was Talleyrand’s
laconic reply. The Duke acted upon it. He went to the
H6tel de Ville. At the suggestion of Lafayette he was
accepted by the mob. The July Revolution was over and
the reign of Louis-Philippe had begun.

3

The first objective of a new Government which has
come into being as the result of a revolution must be to
obtain the recognition and, if possible, the support and
friendship of Governments older and better established.
Revolution was hardly the password to popularity among
the Governments of Europe in 1830. The originator of the
Holy Alliance was dead, but its spirit survived, and the
Emperor Nicholas was a far less compromising and more
practical exponent of autocracy than the Emperor Alex-
ander had ever been. From Vienna the opinions of Metter-
nich dominated Italy and Central Europe, and if the King
of Prussia ever hesitated to accept the views of Metternich
it .was only when he preferred those of Nicholas. The
restored Bourbon still sat uneasily on the throne of Spain,
and a Tory Government still ruled in England.

An usurping monarch, waving the tricolour, singing the
Marseillaise, himself the son of a regicide, could find little
hope of an enthusiastic reception from any of the con-
temporary Courts of Europe. But while’ no prospect was
exactly pleasant- the outlook towards England was more
promising than any other. True, the Government was
Tory, but the Prime Minister was the Duke of Wellington,
than whom no man knew better what France had suffered
in the way of provocation, and none had done more, when
he had the opportunity, to promote the cause of conciliation.

3i8 , THE LONDON EMBASSY

A new king had recently come to the throne of England, a
sailor . of unassuming manners and supposedly liberal senti-
ments. Nor was it for the House of Brunswick to criticise
if another country chose to call a younger branch of the
royal family to the throne, in flattering imitation of the
English people who had done the same thing a hundred
and forty years before.

If recognition were once accorded by England the
Government of Louis-Philippe could feel confident that the
example would soon be followed by other Powers. It was
Important therefore to induce England to lead the way, and,
even after that point had been gajned, it was Talleyrand’s
opinion that England should remain the pivot of France’s
foreign policy. Throughout his life he had consistently
clung to the desirability of the Anglo-French alliance.
These were the views that he had impressed on Mirabeau
in 1791, these were the views that he expressed to Louis-
Philippe at their first interview after the latter’s accession to
the throne in August 1830.

Louis-Philippe accepted this advice, but if the policy
was to be successful much would depend upon the person-
ality of the French representative in England. There was
needed a man of great political experience, of consummate
diplomatic skill, who should have had some previous acquain-
tance with the prominent people in English public life, and
who should, if possible, combine liberal opinions with
aristocratic manners, for an Ambassador who was not a
gentleman would be equally at a disadvantage in London
whether Tories or Whigs were in office, whether the Prime
Minister were the Duke of Wellington or Lord Grey.

All these qualifications were united in Talleyrand and
in nobody else. His age was an objection. ‘He looks
horribly old,’ wrote Greville, who had seen him that summer;
Guizot said that his face resembled'that of a dead lion, and

THE LONDON EMBASSY 319

Mold, now Minister for Foreign Affairs, had written some
months previously, forgetting for once his prejudices:
‘Monsieur de Talleyrand attracts me as everything does that
is passing away, and that threatens to disappear for ever.
What memories are connected with this historic old man.
The spirit and the principles of the i8th century, the grace
and courtesy of the old Court are united in him with the
independence of judgment that belongs to our age and with
the reaklessness of the Revolution. His place will not be
refilled; the circumstances of these times are so petty that
there is no longer room for greatness.’ This tribute paid to
Talleyrand in a moment of emotion would not have been
repeated a few months later when the Minister for Foreign
Affairs found grave reason to complain of the conduct of
his principal Ambassador.

But at that time Mold offered no objection to the appoint-
ment, and such reluctance as Talleyrand himself expressed
was overcome. The Duchess of Dino was pleased. She had
always coveted a high ofEcial post, and she had waited long
for it. Madame de Boigne, who disliked her, suggests that
she had some more intimate reason for wishing to leave
France at this moment, some love affair which she was
anxious to end.

It was realised that there might be some disillusionment
in the hearts of those enthusiasts for liberty who had risked
their lives at the barricades during the glorious days of
July, when they found that the dawn of the new era was to
shed its first rays of preferment upon the hoary head of the
old diplomatist who had never been a favourite with
enthusiasts of any school. But the good will of foreign Gov-
ernments was considered to be of greater importance for the
moment than the illusions of native enthusiasts. The appoint-
ment was made, and in September the first Ambassador of
the first King of the French arrived in London.

320

THL LONDON EMBASSY

. 4

When Talleyrand heard the guns at Dover saluting his
arrival as French Ambassador, he could not help remember-
ing, so he tells us in his memoirs, how he left the shores of
England thirty-six years before. Exiled from his own
country, he had been refused hospitality where he had most
right to expect it, and had been driven across the Atlantic
to face the hazards and hardships which awaited a penniless
and discredited emigrant in a new continent. Now he was
returning ‘animated by hope and above all by the desire to
establish at last that alliance between France and England
which I have always considered as the most solid guarantee
of the happiness of the two nations and of the peace of the
world.

‘. . . These were the reflexions that occupied my mind as
I travelled through beautiful England, so rich and so
peaceful, and arrived in London on 25th September 1830.’

He had never borne any grudge against the English for
the treatment he had received at their hands. He had
acquitted them of responsibility for conduct which had been
due to false reports concerning him spread by his enemies
among the French, emigrants. It was easy enough for a
Frenchman to be anglophile in 1830, but there were few
who had cared to express such sentiments in 1 806, at the
height of the war, at the date of the Berlin decrees, when
Napoleon was concentrating the whole of his genius and all
the resources of France upon the destruction of Great
Britain. Yet even then Talleyrand, the time-server, had been
fearlessly consistent. We have the unprejudiced testimony
of Ferdinand von Fimck, a Saxon officer, to that effect.
‘Talleyrand liked the English nation,’ he wrote in 1806, ‘he
regarded Pitt’s policy as the most astute and at the same time
the most logical a statesman had ever pursued. He often

THE LONDON EMBASSY 321

enlarged on the subject without reserve, as indeed he was in
general not as guarded in his speech as one might have
expected of such a circumspect statesman. . . . When he
saw an opportunity of paying the English a compliment he
never failed to take it. He praised their customs ... he
liked talking about his stay in their country, and this always
frankly and cordially, though always giving reasons for his
commendations so that it was impossible to discern any set
purpose behind them.’

It was a very different country that this lover of England
was revisiting in 1830 from that which he had Ipft in 1794.
Never perhaps have thirty-six years effected so complete a
change In the outward aspect and in the inward mind of a
whole nation. It is hardly too much to say that the complete
process of alteration from the eighteenth to the nineteenth
century had taken place in that period. He had known the
London of Horace Walpole and he came back to the London
of Charles Greville. When he was last there Pitt and Fox
had been at the height of their powers; now the young
Disraeli was already older than Pitt had been when he
became Prime Minister, and the young Gladstone- was
coming of age. He had left the London of knee-breeches
and powdered hair, he returned to the London of frock-
coats and top-hats. White’s Club, down the steps of which
he would have been kicked as a rascally Jacobin in 1794)
elected him an honorary member. The famous bow window
had been built over those steps in the interval and had already
seen its greatest days, for the brief reign of Brummell was
over, and the dandies of the Regency were no more. Boswell
had been alive when he was last in London. The whole
life-work of Keats, Shelley, and Byron had taken place
during his absence and in this, the year of his return, the
first publication of Tennyson saw the light. Those who were
alive at his first visit could remember thp reign of Queen

332 THE LONDON EMBASSY

Anne, those who were alive at his second could live into the
reign of George v.

It is interesting to find him describing London as ‘much
more beautiful’ then he had left it, an opinion corroborated
by an American who, returning to London in this same year
after an absence of nineteen years, said that it had become
■‘a thousand times more beautiful’ than it was. Talleyrand
was surprised that the sun should be shining in September
and that all the members of the Government should be out
of town— phenomena which would have caused less aston-
ishment, then and now, in one better acquainted with the
climate and the customs of the country.

The new Ambassador was well received by the Duke of
Wellington and by Lord Aberdeen, who was Foreign
Setretary. With the former he had for long been on friendly
terms, for the two men understood one another. They were
both great gentlemen of the old school. They were both
intensely practical and they both hated any kind of humbug
or cant. Aberdeen had been brought up in the tradition of
Pitt and under the wing of Castlereagh. No, Government,
it was said, could be too liberal for him, provided it did not
abandon its conservative character. He belonged to the
European as opposed to the nationalist line of British
Foreign Ministers and it had been mainly due to his advice
that Wellington had overcome his scruples about recognising
the Government of Louis-Philippe.

5

Revolution is a symptom of grave political disease, and,
unfortunately, it is contagious. The events of July in Paris
produced similar outbreaks in several other countries of
Europe. The first to which the infection spread was
Belgium. The causes of discontent had nothing in common

THE LONDON EMBASSY 323

with_ those that had led to the upheaval in France. In the
latter country one of the principal grounds of complaint
had been the increasing influence of the Catholic Church.
In Belgium, on the other hand, the Church was behind the
revolution, and was engaged in stirring up that spirit of
nationalism which was to prove the bane of the nineteenth
century.

It had been the policy of Castlereagh at the Congress of
Vienna to set up in the Low Countries a state that should
be strong enough to remain independent both of France and
of Prussia, and yet not so strong as to offer any menace to
the tranquillity of England. Pitt ’ had gone to war with
France not out of horror at the principles of the Revolution,
but because the French Revolutionaries had incorporated
Belgium with France, and had, in Napoleon’s graphic phrase,
held Antwerp like a pistol at the head of England. Castle-
,reagh knew that whenever again a great Pow’er of Europe
should send armed forces across the frontier of Belgium,
without the consent of England, then England would have
to go to war as Inevitably as if those forces had landed in
Kent.

The mistake made by the statesmen who met at Vienna
in 18x4 was to overlook, or to under-rate, the new spirit of
nationalism which had hardly troubled the repose of the
eighteenth century and which the disastrous career of
Napoleon had done so much to inflame. They had there-
fore seen little objection to incorporating Belgium with
Holland in one state under the rule of the House of Orange.
Unfortunately, however, the Belgians and the Dutch, al-
though living in such close proximity, have little in common.
Still more unfortunately, racial antagonism was reinforced
by religious hatred. The Belgians had always been Catholics,
whereas the whole tradition of Holland was bound up with
the history of the Protestant revolt. In August 1830 the

324 THE LONDON EMBASSY

pent-up passions of fifteen years broke loose. It began with
a riot in Brussels and before it had ended Europe was con-
vinced that, whatever else might be the outcome, the two
countries could never be united again.

It was with this matter that the mind of Talleyrand was
principally occupied as he drove through the quiet autumn
fields towards London on 25th September. He had recently
received the latest news of the revolution ih Belgium, and he
realised how serious an obstacle it placed in the way of that
better understanding with England which he desired to
effect. All the sympathies of the French people would be with
the Belgians, who spoke the same language, professed the
same religion as they did, and whose revolution they had so
plainly inspired. The English, on the other hand, might be
expected to support the House of Orange and the Pro-
testant Dutch; while the Government, together with other
Governments, would naturally deplore any interference
with the settlement of Europe that had been agreed upon
at Vienna.

The affairs of Belgium formed the principal subject of
the first conversations between Talleyrand and the British
Government. During the four years of his mission to
England the Belgian question remained the most important
in the domain of foreign affairs. Of the five volumes that
contain his memoirs two are devoted to his official and semi-
official correspondence on this subject. There it is possible
to follow from day to day his skilful and successful handling
of a problem that often threatened to produce a European war.

It is not proposed here to follow those negotiations step
by step. At every turn in them Talleyrand was guided by
one unchanging principle, the determination to maintain
the peace of Europe, of which he was certain that the surest
guarantee was a good understanding between England and
France, He described the world of his day as being governed

THE LONDON EMBASSY 325

by two contending forces. On the one side was the principle
of autocracy, firmly maintained *by the powerful Empires of
Russia and Austria and supported by Prussia; on the other
side was the power of public opinion which ruled in England,
and which now was to rule in France, This alone was
sufficient to justify the alliance of those two countries, and
while their armed forces might be less formidable than
those of their opponents, they were strengthened by the
fact that their cause had supporters in every country.

6

Talleyrand was not a convenient Ambassador from the
point of vie\^ of the Government that he represented. An
Ambassador should be, in fact as well as in theory, the
subordinate of his Minister for Foreign Affairs. When the
Ambassador is a bigger man than the Minister the instru-
ment becomes top heavy. Not only was Talleyrand a far
more important person in the eyes of the world than any of
Louis-Philippe’s Ministers, not only did he surpass them
in talent and experience, but he also had his own particular
methods of conductmg "business that were neither in accord-
ance with diplomatic usage nor with democratic ideas.

He .had always preferred the service of women as agents
and intermediaries. Before leaving Paris he had arranged
to correspond regularly with Madame Adelaide, and she
was to lay all his letters before the King, her brother, over
whom she exercised more influence than did anyone else.
His other principal correspondent, to whom he wrote almost
as often, was the Princess de Vaud^mont. She was a daughter
of Madame de Brionne and had remained one of his dearest
friends throughout all the vicissitudes of his career. Even
now his letters to her were often couched in terms of
gallantry, and all that they contained of political importance

3z6 the LONDON EMBASSY

was communicated by her to the Palais Royal, where she
was on a footing of intimate!' friendship.

Mol^ was a proud and sensitive man. He was one of
those Ministers who are always on the look out for slights
and insults, and are always on the point of resignation.
This private correspondence carried on between the Ambas-
sador and the King behind his back not unnaturally annoyed
him. When, however, he resigned on account of it the King
persuaded him to remain in office.

Mol^ was anxious that the Conference which it was
decided to hold on the Belgian question should take place
in Paris. Talleyrand was determined that it should be held
in London, which was also the desire of the British Govern-
ment. Mold explained to the English Ambassador in Paris
that his real reason for putting forward this proposal was
Talleyrand’s unpopularity in France. His appointment had
already been severely criticised and if such an important
negotiation were entrusted tb him the position of the
Government might be endangered. Here Mold was guilty
of conduct as incorrect and as unconventional as any with
which Talleyrand could be charged. The British Govern-
ment could hardly be expected to give much consideration
to the argument of a French Minister for Foreign Affairs
who complained of the unpopularity of his own Ambassador.
The English view therefore prevailed. It was agreed to
hold the Conference in London. Talleyrand was appointed
to act as French representative and shortly afterwards the
resignation of Mold and his colleagues was accepted.

The British Government did not outlive the French one
for more than a fortnight. The long supremacy of the
Tory Party came to an end In November 1830. The Duke
of Wellington was succeeded by Lord Grey as Priine
Minister; and Lord Aberdeen was replaced by Lord
Palmerston as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

THE LOJ^DON EMBASSY 327

A few weeks earlier Lord Grey, in the privacy of Howick,
had classed Talleyrand with Castlereagh and Brougham as
the three greatest rascals in the world. He belonged to
that type of high and narrow-minded Whig who found it
difficult to change his opinions, so that although he made
Brougham Lord Chancellor and always got on very well
with Talleyrand, he probably retained his views of both
unaltered. So far as foreign affairs were concerned the
sympathy which he naturally felt with the liberal Govern-
ment of France was somewhat tempered in practice by the
influence exercised over him by the Princess Lieven who,
always combining diplomacy with affection, missed no
opportunity of upholding the interests of her master, the
Emperor of Russia, in her intimate relationship with the
Prime Minister of England.

Palmerston was in the full bloom of his exuberant man-
hood. He was a newcomer at the Foreign Office. As
Aberdeen had been the disciple of Castlereagh, so was
Palmerston the disciple of Canning. He had a cheerful
contempt for foreigners. To him the doyen of European
diplomacy, ‘this almost fabulous old man,’ was merely ‘Old
Tally,’ whom he did not scruple to leave in a waiting-room
for an hour or two, treatment which a gentleman would
hardly have accorded to the humblest individual approach-
ing his eightieth year. One who could remember the Court
of Louis XV must have found it difficult to brook the be-
haviour of this flamboyant Harrovian with his dyed whiskers
and striped pantaloons. But patience, the fruit of long
experience, and tolerance bom of scorn, enabled him to
suffer with equanimity the indignities to which he was
subjected, and never to allow his personal irritation to
interfere with his political plans. That Palmerston was not
able to do the same is the only failing for which Talleyrand
afterwards criticised him. There appeared in London a

THE LONDON EMBASSY

328

cartoon entitled ‘The larne leading the blind,’ in which
Palmerston was shown as being led by Talleyrand. Palm-
erston’s vanity was deeply wounded; that he of all men should
be suspected of subservience to a foreigner was more than
he could bear. -His behaviour to Talleyrand underwent
from that date a change for the worse, but in spite of it
Talleyrand describes him in his memoirs as one of the
cleverest, if not the cleverest man with whom he ever had to
deal.

7

It was the duty of these ill-assorted colleagues to stand
together in the Five-Power Conference on Belgium against
the representatives of the three absolutist states. The
sittings were long and proved a high tax on the strength of
Talleyrand. At the first two meetings agreement was reached
on the important points of recognising the independence
and the neutrality of Belgium. Palmerston, in a letter to
Granville, now Ambassador in Paris, wrote that Talleyrand
had ‘fought like a lion,’ and by claiming more than he
expected had got all that he desired.

The next question was to find a king for the new king-
dom. The Belgians offered the throne to Louis-Philippe’s
younger son, the Duke de Nemours. Louis-Philippe with
some reluctance was induced, largely by Talleyrand’s insist-
ence, to refuse the offer. There were other claimants—
Princes of Sicily and Bavaria, a son of Eugene Beauharnais,
and even some local magnates.

Talleyrand favoured from the first the candidature of
Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. He was the widower of
Princess Charlotte, George iv’s only child, and was therefore
likely to be regarded by other countries as an English
candidate. This difficulty Talleyrand believed could be
overcome by his marrying the daughter of Louis-Philippe.

THE LONDON EMBASSY 349

In a conversation with Palmerston on this subject he so
manosuvred that it was Palmerston who first mentioned the
name of Leopold. ‘I showed some astonishment,’ wrote
Talleyrand, ‘as though this idea had never occurred to me;
but my astonishment had slightly the air of a happy dis-
covery.’ The more Palmerston believed the idea to be his
own the more he liked it. Finally it proved to be the pro-
posal that prevailed and Leopold in due course, with
Talleyrand’s full approval, became the first King of the
Belgians.

It was one thing, however, for the Powers to decide, and
quite another to get their decision accepted. Holland
refused to listen to them, and although they had agreed to a
settlement among themselves, the 'question of coercing
Holland presented difficulties. The King of Holland was
the brother-in-law of the King of Prussia, the Prince of
Orange was the brother-in-law of the Czar. While France
was ready enough to enforce the settlement by arms, these
monarchs were naturally reluctant to let loose at the throats
of their relatives the revolutionary armies of the usurper.

It was a dangerous year, 1831, in Paris. Every moment
the new monarchy seemed about to fall. Shrewd observers
predicted the return of the Bonapartes, and, if the young
heir of Napoleon had not died shortly afterwards,, their
predictions might have come true. The representative of a
tottering Government is always in an unenviable position,
and Talleyrand’s task was ‘rendered the more difficult by
rumours of war abroad as well as of revolution at home.
Disturbances had broken out in Italy, in Portugal, and in
Poland. There was the prospect of a dynastic war in Spain.
Through all these difficulties Talleyrand steered his way
with infinite patience and consummate skill, virtually direct-
ing from London the foreign policy of the French Govern-
ment.

330

THE LONDON EMBASSY

Mol^ had been succeeded by LafHtte as principal Minister
and Laffitte had been followed by Casimir Pdrier. The
latter by firm measures did much to retrieve the errors of
the former. He worked in harmony with Talleyrand, whom
he appreciated, and sent his son, father of the future
President of the Republic, to serve in the Embassy in
London. Talleyrand, reporting favourably on the young
man, wrote: ‘I check his zeal, because in our career zeal is
only harmful’ — and at the same time he expressed the belief
that ‘the greatest danger in times of crisis comes from the
zeal of people who are inexperienced.’

When the recalcitrant King of Holland sent troops into
Belgium Talleyrand obtained the approval of the Conference
for military intervention by the French. The Dutch ran
away from the French as fast as the Belgians had run from
the Dutch, and the next difficulty was to persuade the French
to retire neither having enjoyed the glory of battle nor
taking with them the fruits of victory. Coupled with the
demand for an indemnity was the claim to demolish the
fortresses which had been set up in Belgiiun by the Congress
of Vienna to serve as watch towers from which the Powers
could descend upon France to deliver chastisement when-
ever merited. They had been deeply resented and the
occasion seemed opportune for their destruction. In all
these matters it was Talleyrand’s duty to perform the delicate
task of representing his country to the Powers and of using
all his influence to moderate the demands of his own Gov-
ernment. Tn general,’ he wrote, ‘ — and this was my greatest
difficulty — at Paris people judged affairs only from an
exclusively French point of view.’

Opinion in England was hardening against France as the
result of her military operations in Belgium. On 29th
September during a debate in the House of Lords a violent
personal attack was made on Talleyrand by Lord London-

THE LONDON EMBASSY -331

derry. ‘That ass Londonderry,’ as Greville called him, was
the unworthy half-brother of Castlereagh. He had acted as
Ambassador at Vienna during the Congress where by his
ostentation and his violence — he once had a fight with a
cabman — he had frequently rendered himself ridiculous.
With such experience of diplomacy he should have known
better than to make a personal attack on the representative
of a friendly Power.

Talleyrand, however, did not lack defenders. Lord
Goderich, the spokesman of the Government, administered
the official reproof. He was followed by Wellington, who,
like Londonderry, was in opposition and was supporting
his attack on the Government. Characteristically he did
not allow such considerations to prevent him from saying
what he thought. He reminded the House that ‘that illus-
trious individual who had been so strongly animadverted
upon by his noble friend near him had enjoyed to a very
high degree the confidence of his noble friend’s deceased
relative. . . . He had no hesitation in saying that in every
one of the great transactions that took place at the Congress
of Vienna and in every transaction in which ^ he had been
engaged with Prince de Talleyrand since, from the first to
the last of them, no man could have conducted himself with
more firmness and ability with regard to his own country
or with more uprightness and honour in all his communica-
tions with the Ministers of other countries. They had
heard a good deal of Prince de Talleyrand from many
quarters; but he felt himself bound to declare it to be his
sincere and conscientious belief that no man’s public and
private character had ever been so much belied as both the
public and the private character of that illustrious individual
had been.’

Lord Holland, later in the debate, paid a further tribute:
‘. . . forty years’ acquaintance with the noble individual who

33 *

THE LONDON EMBASSY

had been alluded to, enabled him to bear his testimony to
the fact that, although those forty years had been passed
during a time peculiarly fraught with calumnies of every
description, there had been no man’s private’ character more
shamefully traduced, and no man’s public character more
mistaken and misrepresenfod, than the private and public
character of Prince de Talleyrand.’

When these speeches were reported to him the old man
was moved to tears. It was not only the generosity of their
language that touched him, but the thought that he had
never received such recognition in his own country. Even
now, when he was exhausting the last hours of his life in the
service of France, there was not a soul in Paris who would
have said as much for him. When news failed to come from
across the Channel he would fall into a fever. ‘At my age,’
he explained, 'one’s nerves are easily upset.’

To an Englishman who believes that Talleyrand was a
true patriot and- a wise statesman, to whom neither con-
temporaries nor posterity have done justice, it is a source of
some satisfaction to remember that it was in the British
House of Lords that there were paid to him these glowing
tributes by two men of singular honesty of outlook and
clarity of perception, one a con-vinced adherent of the party
that was beginning to be called Conservative, and the other
a genuine Liberal in every sense of the word,

8

Glimpses of his life in London are to be obtained from
the journals of Creevey and Grevllle. He appears only to
have talked French although during his previous visits to
England and to America he had acquired considerable
knowledge of the language. .‘What an idiot I am,’ wrote
Creevey, ‘never to have made myself a Frenchman. To

THE LONDON EMBASSY 333

think of having such a card as this old villain Talleyrand so
often within one’s reach and yet not to be able to make any-
thing of it. I play my accustomed rubber of whist with him.’

Greville spoke French, but.he was deaf and found Talley-
rand difficult to understand owing to ‘his mode of pumping
up his words from the bottomest pit of his stomach.’ But
Greville collected a few of them and tells us of the affection
with which he always spoke of Fox, delighting to dwell on
his simplicity and gaiety, his childlike qualities, and his
profundity. Reminiscences of Madame Dubarry who ‘had
some remains of beauty up to the period of her death,’ of
the mysterious Count de St. Germain who was believed to
be the Wandering Jew, of Mirabeau, of Benjamin Franklin, .
and of all the other celebrities of the last fifty years were
ready for those who were prepared to listen. ‘It is strange to
hear M. de. Talleyrand talk at seventy-eight,’ Greville com-
ments. ‘He opens the stores of his memory and pours forth
a stream on any subject connected with his past life. Nothing
seems to have escaped from that great treasury of bygone
events.’

But even in recollections of the past he met his match
in Brougham. Creevey describes conversation between
the two at Stoke. ‘Sefton and I were more astonished at
Brougham than ever. By his conversation with old Talley-
rand it appeared most clearly that Vaux (although he was a
child at the time) had been intimately acquainted with every
leading Frenchman in the Revolution, and indeed with every
Frenchman and every French book that Talleyrand men-
tioned. He always led in this conversation as soon as Tally
had started his subject.’

The same Lord Sefton sat next to Talleyrand at a banquet
at St. James’s Palace. King William iv had one weakness
which was not inappropriate in a monarch 'who ruled over
England while the Pickwick Papers were being written. He

334 THE LONDON EMBASSY

hated to sec water drunk at his table, he never set a bad
example in this respect himself and after dinner he was
fond of making speeches which were always irrelevant, often
indiscreet and sometimes indecent. On this occasion, all the
Cabinet Ministers and Foreign Ambassadors being present,
he made two speeches. The second, after the ladies had left,
‘travelled over every variety of topic that suggested itself to
his excursive mind and ended with a very coarse toast and
the words “Honi soit qui mal y pense.” Sefton said he never
felt so ashamed; Lord Grey was ready to sink into the earth;
everybody laughed of course, and Sefton said to Talleyrand:
“Eh bien; que pensez vous de cela ?” With his unmoved and
' immovable face, he answered only: “C’estbien remar quable."’

. The following is Greville’s final verdict: 'The years he
passed here were probably the most peaceful of his life, and
they served to create for him a reputation altogether new,
and such as to cancel all former recollections. His age was
venerable, his society was delightful, and there was an
exhibition of conservative wisdom, of moderate and healing
counsels in all his thoughts, words, and actions veiy becoming
to his age and station, vastly influential from his sagacity
and experience, and which presented him to the eyes of men
as a statesman like Burleigh or Clarendon for prudence,
temperance and discretion. Here therefore he acquired
golden opinions and was regarded by all ranks and all
parties with respect, and by many with sincere regard.’

9

The premiership of Casimir Pdrier did much to restore
the waning prestige of the Orleans Monarchy. In some
directions he sjrowed himself almost needlessly aggressive
and Talleyrand particularly deplored th? despatch of French
troops to Ancona in reply to similar action taken by the

THE LONDON EMBASSY 335

Austrian Government. He was, as ever, opposed to any
gesture likely to cause alarm and distrust in foreign countries.
The Ancona expedition, with regard to which he was not
consulted, was regarded with severe disapproval by the
British Government, and his position in London was there-
fore rendered more difficult.

Further obstacles were put in his way by the intrigues of
the Count de Flahaut who was guilty at this period of
far from dutiful conduct towards one to whom he owed
so much.

That Talleyrand was genuinely fond of Flahaut seems
proved by the letters which he addressed to him over a
period of thirty years, but it is doubtful whether the affection
was ever reciprocated. In his childhood and youth Flahaut’s
mind had been poisoned against Talleyrand by his mother,
and the work that she had begun had been completed by his
wife. When Flahaut fled to England after Waterloo, where
he had acted as aide-de-camp to Napoleon, it had been a
great achievement on his part, penniless and an exile, to
win the hand of an English heiress, whose father, Admiral
Lord Keith,' had spent his life in fighting the French. The
match had been bitterly opposed, but Meg Mercer, as her
friends called her, was a woman of most determined char-
acter, and the Admiral eventually capitulated before her
insistence and the charm of Flahaut, which worked almost
as irresistibly upon men as upon women.

To obtain the admiration of women is the ambition of
most men, and those who achieve it easily are apt to believe
that their success is in some way a proof of their intelligence,
forgetting that it is not always intellectual superiority that
makes the strongest claim on feminine regard. There is no
reason to think that Flahaut’s brain was above the average,
bUt both his mother and his wife were remarkable women
and there had been many others, during the interval between

336 THE LOND’ON EMBASSY

the cradle and the altar, who had done their utmost to per-
suade him that there was not his equal upon earth.

Public life during the Restoration had been closed to
one who had been too faithful to the Emperor, but after
the Revolution of July all the Bonapartists began to look for
employment, and Flahaut felt that at last his talents would
find scope. He was in London in 1831 and at first worked
harmoniously with Talleyrand, but he presumed to hold
views of his own on foreign policy and was not prepared to
abandon them at the bidding of anyone. He saw no grave
objection to the acceptance of the Belgian throne by the
Duke de Nemours, and he later advocated a scheme for the
partitioning of Belgium between France and other Powers,
according to which England was to be compensated by the
port of Antwerp. Talleyrand was horrified at the plan,
particularly at the suggestion that England should be given
a foothold on the mainland of northern Europe, but Flahaut
was loth to relinquish it until the situation was simplified
by his appointment as Ambassador at Berlin. Such pro-
motion should have satisfied the claims of a man little over
forty whose previous experience had been only military,
but neither Flahaut nor his wife was content. They con-
sidered themselves admirably suited to the French Embassy
in London and they could not forgive its occupant for
standing in their way.

This was the main cause of the estrangement which
sprang up between father and son, and it was undoubtedly
increased and embittered by the violent animosity that
divided Margaret de Flahaut and Dorothea de Dino. It
was difficult for the two women to be friends; they were too
nearly of an age; their interests were too obviously opposed,
and they were both too active and too intelligent to admit
inferiority.

Flahaut did not stay long in Berlin and henceforward all

THE LONDON EMBASSY 337

his activities and those of his wife were directed to the
undoing of those to whom they refer in their correspondence
as ‘the uncle and the niece.’ The violence of their feelings
is surprising. Flahaut refers to his father as ‘that vile old
man’ and to Dorothea as ‘that horrid little serpent,’ ‘that
lying little devil’— saying of her ‘I don’t think she writes
to all her former lovers but she does to a great many and she
will stick at nothing to serve her purposes and malice.’ So
exaggerated was his idea of his own importance that he
informed his wife that the King wished to make him Minister
for Foreign Affairs and was only prevented from doing so
through fear of displeasing Talleyrand.

The hostility of this couple was a factor to be reckoned
with. Madame de Flahaut had powerful friends in London.
She was on intimate terms with Lord and Lady Grey and
with their son-in-law, Lord Durham; and she spread rumours
that Talleyrand was plotting with Wellington behind the
backs of the Whigs. In Paris she established a salon and
Flahaut himself was a close friend of the young Duke of
Orleans, the heir to the throne.

In May 1832 Casimir Pdrier fell a victim to cholera.
It was immediately suggested that Talleyrand should take
his place. Charles de Rdmusat, the son of his old friend,
came to London on purpose to persuade him, bringing
messages from many of his prominent friends in Paris
urging him to accept. ‘One ought not to be obstinate,’ he
wrote about this time, ‘except when one ought to be; but
when one ought to be, then one ought to be unshakable.’
On this question he was as firm as a rock. He had already
made a success of his English mission. He hoped to make
a greater success of it still. ‘At every epoch,’ he wrote, ‘there
is some good to be done or some harm to hinder; that is
why, if one loves his country, one can, and in my opinion
one ought to, serve it under all the Governments that it

338 THE LONDON EMBASSY

adopts.’ He knew that he was serving his country well in
London, and therefore he meant to remain there until, at
least, the Belgian question was settled. ‘I will not think
about my age until the ratifications have been received.’

In June 1832 he left London on leave. The King and
his Ministers all impressed upon him before his departure
the importance that they attached to his return. It was
generally felt in London that good relations with France
and indeed the avoidance of war depended upon Talleyrand’s
presence. From the social as well as from the political point
of view he and the Duchess of Dino had created for them-
selves a remarkable position in English society. ‘The
Revolution of July,’ wrote a French observer, ‘is sometimes
rather middle class in Paris, but, thanks to M. de Talley-
rand, it has a very grand air in London.’ Prosper M6rim^e,
who prided himself on being a judge of such things, wrote at
the same period, having met Talleyrand for the first time:
‘I Cannot sufficiently admire the profound sense of every-
thing he says, the simplicity and the comme-il-faut of his
manner. It is the perfection of ah aristocrat. The English,
who have great pretensions to elegance and good taste, come
nowhere near him. Wherever he goes he creates a court and
his word is law.’

During his visit to France, from June to October, he went
once more to Bourbon for the waters, and stayed at Roche-
cotte with his niece. On his return to London he found the
Belgian question still unsettled. The King of Holland had
possession of Antwerp and refused to surrender it. Once
more military intervention was necessary, and once more.
France was the only Power that was prepared to intervene.
Agreement having been reached with Palmerston, French
troops crossed the frontier in November; and in December
Antwerp capitulated.

This was really the end. The King of Holland did not

THE LONDON EMBASSY 339

officially accept the situation until some years later, but his
reluctance to do so was no longer of any importance. Talley-
rand said with truth that Belgium could date her existence
as an independent state from the day of the capitulation of
Antwerp. '

The period of gestation had been long. It was over at
last. No statue of Talleyrand stands in Brussels, but few
countries have ever owed more to a single statesman than
Belgium owes to him. Her independence, her frontiers,
her reigning House, the guarantee of her neutrality— for
each of these features of her existence he had worked un-
tiringly and with success. It was mainly due to him that
her birth was not accompanied by a European war, and that
more ink than blood was spilt at her baptism.

' 10

By the end therefore of the year 1832 the main object
of his mission was accomplished and he began to con-
template retirement. On- the last day of the year the Princess
de Vaudemont died, and he described himself as inconsolable
at the loss of one wHom he had known for fifty years and
■with whom his relations had never varied.

His friend Dalberg died a few months later, and Lafayette
In the following year. He had never admired the latter and
had always referred to him as Gilles the Great. He had
written of him in his memoirs: Tn a novel the author gives
some intelligence and a distinguished character to the
principal personage; fate takes less trouble: mediocrities
play a part in great events simply because they happen to
be there.’ Yet he felt the death of the other veteran.
Madame de Dino’s explanation was perhaps correct:
'It seems that after the age of eighty all contemporaries
are friends.’

34° THE LONDON EMBASSY

He could not help thinking of Lafayette and the mad
days of 1789, when he conversed with Lord Grey and heard
accounts of the new House of Commons. That strange man
Cobbett, whom he had met in America long ago, had been
elected for a strange place called .Oldham that had been
enfranchised by the Reform Bill. Cobbett had suspected
Talleyrand of being a Jacobin then. The two men had
trodden very different roads in the interval and we cannot
tell what the new Member of Parliament thought of the old
Ambassador. But to the latter it seemed that the scenes of
his youth were being enacted again. Once more the aristo-
crats were playing with democracy. Did Lord Grey and his
noble friends know what they were doing .? Did they realise
that they had sealed the doom of their own order ? He was
pessimistic as to the future of England. He felt more
keenly here than elsewhere that he had survived into a
world to which he did not belong. His work was finished.
Why should he put up with the bad manners of Palmerston
any longer ?

He went again to France on leave in 1833, and returned
again to duty with increased reluctance. He would have
liked to form a definite alliance with England but his
overtures were not well received. Affairs in the Peninsula
were troublesome. Two reactionary claimants were in
opposition to two supposedly liberal Governments. Palmer-
ston having arranged treaties with the latter invited France to
adhere. It was beneath the dignity of a great Power to
adhere to treaties arranged by others. France would come
in as a principal contracting party or not at all. A heated
diplomatic controversy ensued, out of which after prolonged
argument and many weary sittihgs Talleyrand emerged
victorious. The Quadruple Alliance was signed in April 1834,
and it was regarded in France as a triumph for Talleyrand.

THE LONDON EMBASSY

34:

II

But the summer of 1834 was a sad one for diplomatic
circles in London. The Lievens were going away. The
arrogance of Palmerstonj who had insisted upon sending as
Ambassador to Russia the one man in England whom he
knew the Czar would not receive, had resulted in the recall
of the Russian Ambassador from London. For twenty-two
years Princess Lieven had been one of the leaders of London
society. The prospect of returning to St. Petersburg filled
her with despair. Dorothea de Dino had provided her
during the last four years with the kind of rivalry that she
enjoyed. Creevey describes them as furnishing the principal
entertainment at a large house party— ‘the female Lieven
and the Dino were the people for sport. They are both
professional talkers— artists quite, in that department. We
had them both quite at their ease, and perpetually at work
with each other; but the Lieven for my money! She has
more dignity and the Dino more grimace.’

The one emotion that they shared was hatred of Palmer-
ston, and as the day drew nearer for the departure of the
Lievens a bond of sympathy united the two women. Madame
de Dino felt that the time had come for Talleyrand’s mission
also to be concluded. She noticed that when they were going
on leave in 1832, the King had said: ‘I have charged my
Ambassador in Paris to tell your Government that I insist
on keeping you here.’ In 1833 he had said: 'When are you
coming back.?’ In 1834 he asked; ‘When are you leaving?’
The sailor King was no diplomatist, and the clever woman
probably read more into the blunt old man’s words than he
had ever intended. She saw in this diminishing cordiality
the influence of Palmerston, and, more jealous of Talleyrand’s
dignity than he was himself, she could not b&ar that he should
continue to be subjected to the impertinence of his inferior.

342 THE LONDON EMBASSY

Lady Cowper, Palmerston’s intimate friend and soon to be
his wife, sought to excuse his conduct on the -ground that it
was due merely to bad manners and to overwork. She was
anxious to prevent the impression getting abroad that he
had driven Talleyrand as well as the Lievens away -from
England.

But Madame 'de Dino was not to be convinced. She had
been happy in England. In one of the letters — almost love
letters— which she wrote to Thiers during the first two
years of her stay — she had said that if the climate were
better and the cost of living lower she would like to live in
England for ever. But the Reform Bill had changed every-
thing. When the Houses of Parliament were burnt, later
in this year, she thought it ‘ominous.’ ‘Those old walls,’
she wrote, ‘would not dishonour themselves by lending
shelter to the profane doctrines of the time.’ .

She felt things deeply. A libellous publication entitled
‘Monsieur de Talleyrand’ appeared in July. She could not
bear to read it, but Talleyrand read it himself and said that
it was ‘so silly, so untrue, so dull, and so badly invented that
he would not have given five shillings to have prevented its
publication.’

In August he left London. He had not .decided whether
he would return; bttt Dorothea had. She set her arguments
before him in. a long letter, ‘for,’ she wrote, ‘I irritate you
a little sometimes by talking, and then I stop before I have
said all I think; so let me write to you.’ She went on to argue
that the object of his mission was accomplished, that he
could render no further service in England when the
political future was so uncertain and where, owing to the
break up of the diplomfitic corps and the bad manners of
the Foreign Secretary, life was no longer agreeable. ‘If,
like you, one belongs ■ to history one ^should think of no
other future save that which history prepares. You know

THE LONDON EMBASSY

343

that history judges the end of a man’s life more severely
than the beginning. . . . Declare yourself old, lest people
should find that you have aged, say nobly to the world;
“The hour has struck.” ’

Talleyrand still hesitated. Every man is reluctant to sign
his own death warrant. Resignation at the age of eighty-
two must mean the end. Delicate from youth, his health
in old age was remarkable. The weakness of his legs now
necessitated his being carried over the shortest distances,
but otherwise he was vigorous and all testimony concurs as
to the clearness of his memory and the youthfulness of his
mind. Nevertheless as the autumn went on he began to
yield before the arguments of his niece, reinforced by the
promptings of his own reason. It was she who finally drafted
his letter of resignation, Royer-Collard corrected the draft,
and with a weary shrug of his shoulders the old man signed it,
and brought his long political life to an end.

Chapter Fourteen

THE LAST TREATY

I

When Talleyrand signed liis resignation in November 1834
he had still three and a half years to live. It would seem
that during these years he enjoyed as great a measure of
happiness as ever falls to the lot of those who reach extreme
old age. His health was failing and his limbs were crippled,
but his senses of sight and hearing were undiminished, and
the pleasures of conversation remained with him to the end.
He had survived his generation; the companions and the
loves of his .youth were dead; but he never lacked congenial
society, and there was always at his side the woman to whom
he had been devoted for twenty years, who, at the age of
forty, retained her beauty, and whose daughter, the child
Pauline, his ‘guardian angel’ as he called her, shed an
atmosphere of innocence and pure affection over the closing
days of his life.

Dorothea de Dino began to keep a journal in 1831, and
from 1834 she wrote in it regularly. . Her pages provide an
almost daily record pf her life and 7'alleyrand’s during this
period. They lived as before principally in Paris during the
winter and at Valenfay in the summer. Shorter visits were
paid to Rochccotte, where she became the hostess and he a
guest; and in the summer of 1835 ^

months, during which she travelled in Germany and
Switzerland.

Whether in Paris or. in the country thiy entertained on a

344

TALLKYRAND
from a drawing by Maclise

THE LAST TREATY

345

lavish scale, setting an example of hospitality which the
subjects of the bourgeois rhonarch were slow to imitate.
Henry Greville, the young brother of Charles, was an
attach^ at the British Embassy. During the first nine months
that he was in Paris Talleyrand’s was the only house to
which he received an invitation. He dined there frequently,
was an enthusiastic admirer of his host’s conversation, and
has left in his journal a detailed account of a visit that he
paid to Valen^ay in the autumn of 1834.

‘The day begins,’ he wrote, ‘with dejeuner a la fourchette
at half-past eleven, after which the company adjourn to the
Salon and converse until two o’clock when the promenades
begin. Dine at half-past five, and go to bed at any hour; but
the early dinner hour makes the evening interminable. . , .
The Prince is Uncommonly well and seems as happy as
possible au sein de sa famille. Every evening at nine o’clock
he drives for an hour, and on his return plays his rubber of
whist until eleven o’clock, when the post arrives from
Paris. . . . He was very proud of a definition he had made of
“I’Amour”— “L’Amour est une r&lit^ dans le domaine de
I’imagination.” ’

Some days they hunted the stag and on others they shot.
Visitors came and went. Lady Clanricarde, Canning’s
daughter, a brilliant talker and a great favourite with
Talleyrand, was there at the time, and the Duke of Orleans
paid a short visit although he was strongly dissuaded from
doing so by the Count de Flahaut.

Montrond, ‘le beau Montrond’ of other days, had recently
left the chateau after an unpleasant interview with Dorothea.
She had never liked him, and now more than ever she
deplored his manners and his morals and the influence
which she believed him to exercise over the mind of Talley-
rand. His bitter tongue had grown no kinder with the
years. It was said of him that his wit lived on human

THE LAST TREATY

346

flesh. He refused to compromise with the taste of the
nineteenth century, and continued to ignore the ban which
had been laid upon the indecent and the profane in polite
conversation. Worse still, he was beginning to prove a
cantankerous and quarrelsome guest. Nothing was good
enough for the old voluptuary. He cursed the servants,
complained of the food and the wine, and, on his arrival in
Paris, spread satirical comments on the dullness of the
company and the poverty of the entertainment.

The Princess de Lieven was another who found life at
Valenfay insufficiently exciting. She was an unhappy
woman. Exiled from the throne that she had made for her-
self in London, she refused to return to Russia, whither
duty and her husband called her, and lingered on in Paris
absorbed as ever in social and diplomatic intrigue, but with-
out any definite position to lend dignity and significance to
her activities. She had not yet formed the liaison with
Guixot which was to close her cycle of romance.

At Valen^ay she insisted on changing her bedroom three
times in a week. Neither reading nor needlework could
distract her. The post from Paris was all that she waited
for and her irrepressible yawns were terrible to behold. She
was attached, however, to Dorothea de Dino who, although
her junior, treated her as a spoilt child. Their rivalry had
brought them together, but the younger woman had broader
interests and, while sharing all those which bound the other
to the town, could herself be happy in the country. Her
books, her garden, her children and the ever-present anxiety
with regard to the health of her uncle, were sufficient to
occupy her mind.

At the end of 1835 there occurred the death of the
Princess de Talleyrand. She had not seen her husband
for more than twenty years and such affection as had once
united them had vanished long before. .Yet Dorothea

THE LAST TREATY 347

hesitated to tell him the' news. She had found him ill
and depressed on her return from Switzerland, and in no
mood to receive a melancholy announcement. But when the
news was broken he neither showed nor expressed the
slightest concern. ‘That simplifies my position,’ was his
only comment, and all that day he wore a smile and some-
times hummed a tune. It did not occur to him to simulate
sorrow or to disguise satisfaction. Hypocrisy had never
been one of his vices. Financially he benefited by his wife’s
death for he had made her a generous allowance. Another
consideration was probably present to his mind. He was no
longer a married priest. ,

2

So long as there was breath in Talleyrand’s body he could
not abandon political intrigue. He still exercised great
influence. Madame Adelaide still corresponded with him
regularly and the King still listened to Madame Adelaide.
In the long rivalry between Thiers and Guizot, which was
now beginning, the Rue St. Florentin was on the side of
Thiers. The Prince had liked the voluble little man from
the first, and his friendship with Dorothea had at one time
attained definitely sentimental proportions.

When Thiers formed a Government in February 1836
it was popularly supposed that. Talleyrand was responsible;
when he fell from power in August of the same year, it was
generally believed that Talleyrand had withdrawn his sup-
port. Thiers was urging armed intervention in the aflrairs
of Spain. The King refused his consent. Talleyrand shared
the views of the King. He had opposed intervention in
Spain under Napoleon; he had opposed it under Louis xvni;
he continued to oppose it under Louis-Philippe.

Thiers was succeeded by Mol^, whose first action on
assuming office was to write to Talleyrapd, ‘As the new

THE LAST TREATY

348

Cabinet had been formed upon a question and with ideas
which M. de Talleyrand had wisely made his own, the new
Ministers should be able to congratulate themselves on his
approval, and for himself he trusted that it might be so, as
he relied upon M. de Talleyrand’s counsel and opinion.’
The next day Madame de Dino received a letter, almost
flirtatious, from Guizot, informing her of his inclusion in the
Ministry. Well might she write in her journal ‘the friend-
ship of the King for M. de Talleyrand and the confidence
with which he honours him forbid any Minister to be on
bad terms with him.’

But despite the high estimation in which he was held by
all, despite the influence which he exercised in public life,
despite the ease and comfort, the grace and charm of his
existence, Talleyrand’s mind was not at peace. To the
younger -people of the age he was already a legendary figure.
He had always despised the opinion of his contemporaries,
but he could not be equally indifferent to the verdict of
posterity. He knew that that verdict was being written
while he yet lived, and although he was still too proud and
too indolent to plead his cause, to enter a defence, to draw
up an elaborate apologia, it is plain that he, who all his life
had never cared for what people might say of him, was
beginning to feel some anxiety as to what would be thought
of him after his death.

Balzac had paid him a tribute in Le Phe Goriot, referring
to him as the man who had prevented the partition of
France at the Congress of Vienna, a man to whom crowns
were owed and at whom mud was thrown, a tribute the value
of which was only slightly diminished by its being placed in
the mouth of a criminal. Balzac was invited to Rochecotte.
Dorothea was not pleased. She found him vulgar. ‘Clever
no doubt, but without verve or ease in conversation. . . .

THE LAST TREATY 349

He examined and observed us most minutely, especially
M; de Talleyrand.’ But Talleyrand knew how important
was the good opinion of this stout, overdressed, inquisitive
little man. He laid himself out to win it. Balzac was
impressed. ‘M. de Talleyrand,’ he wrote, ‘is astonishing,
Hf had two or three outbursts of prodigious ideas (jets
d’id^es prodigieuses). He pressedme to visithim at Valen^ay
and I shan’t fail to do so if he lives.’

On another occasion he opened his heart to Lamartine.
He had been one of the first to appreciate Lamartine’s
poetry. ‘Nature has made you a poet,’ he told him, ‘poetry
will make y-ou an orator, tact and reflection will make you a
politician. ... I knew the Mirabeau of the past, try to be
the Mirabeau of the future. He was a great man but he
lacked the courage to be unpopular. In that respect I am
more of a man than he; I abandon my reputation to all the
misunderstandings and all the insults of the mob. . I am
thought immoral and machiavellian, I am only calm and
disdainful. I have never given evil counsel to a government
or to a prince; but I do not share their fall. After ship-
wrecks there must be pilots to save the victims. I have
presence of mind and I guide them to some port; little
matter what port provided that it shelters thfem. ... I have
braved the stupidity of public opinion all my life; 1 can
brave it for forty years in the grave. Remember what I am
prophesying to you, when I am dead. You are one of the
few men by whom I wish to be understood.

‘ There are many ways in which a statesman can be honest.
I see that my way is not yours; but you will value me more
than you think one day. My pretended crimes are the
dreams of imbeciles. Has a ‘clever man ever the need to
commit a crime? Crime is the resource of political half-
wits. ... I have had weaknesses, some would say vices—
but crimes, / done'

THE LAST TREATY

350

Long afterwards when Lamartine was playing a leading
part in the Revolution of 1848 he doubtless remembered
the counsels of moderation that the old statesman had
impressed upon hinij for it was his eloquence that main-
tained order in Paris, and it was his wisdom that insisted
upon despatching without delay a circular note to the
Powers proclaiming the pacific intentions of the new
Government.

Talleyrand’s efforts were not confined to winning the
good opinion of men of letters, important as he knew that
their testimony would be in the future. We have seen from
Charles Greville how favourable was the impression he
made on all circles in London, and Henry Greville is equally
enthusiastic in praise of his manners, his conversation, and
his kindness shown towards a humble attache in Paris.

It is even more interesting to find that he could still win
over the good opinion of a woman strongly prejudiced in
his disfavour. The charm before which the dislike, distrust,
and disapproval of Madame de la Tour du Pin, Madame
D’Arblay, Madame de Rdrausat, and Madame Potocka had
collapsed long ago was still potent in the octogenarian.

Lady Granville, the ’British Ambassadress, was a good
woman, a great lady and an attractive letter-writer. Her
opinion of Talleyrand was that of most of her contem-
poraries, and in her early letters from Paris ‘old lizard’ was
the most complimentary term in which she referred to him.
But one morning he called on her. ‘Did I tell you,’ she
wrote to her sister, ‘Talleyrand paid me a long visit on
Wednesday morning.? I never knew before the, as Mr.
Foster says, power of his charms. First of all it is difficult
and painful to believe that he. is not the very best man in
the world, so gentle, so kind, so simple, and so grand. One
forgets the past life, the present look. I could have sat
hours listening to him.’

THE LAST TREATY

351

3

But the good opinion of Lady Granville, the affection of
Lamartine, the admiration of Balzac, were not enough. It
was during the reign of Louis-Philippe that the Napoleonic
legend laid its lasting hold upon the minds and imaginations
of Frenchmen. Talleyrand saw what was taking place, and
he knew that in the future the brighter the fame of Napoleon
appeared, the darker would appear his own infamy.

On 1st October 1836 at Valen^ay he drew up a solemn
declaration which he wished to be read to his heirs, relations,
and intimate friends after the reading of his will. It con-
tains a brief justification of some of his actions. Passing
over the part played in the Revolution, he mentions his
secularisation by the Pope and expresses his belief that he
was thus rendered entirely independent. He then decided
that he would serve France under any Governjnent on the
ground that there was always some good to be done. ‘I
therefore served Bonaparte when Emperor as I had served
him when Consul: I served him with devotion so long as I
could believe that he himself was completely devoted to
France. But when I saw the beginning ‘of those revolu-
tionary enterprises which ruined him I left the ministry,
for which he never forgave me. , . .

‘Arrived at my eighty-second year, calling back to mind
the so numerous actions of my political life, which has been
a long one, weighing them by the strictest measure, I find
as a result —

‘That of all the Governments that I have served from
none have I received more than I gave;

‘That I abandoned none before it abandoned^ itself;

‘That I have not put the interests of any party, nor my
own, nor those of my relations into the balance against the
true interests of France, which moreover are not, in my

THE LAST TREATY

352

opinion, ever in opposition to the true interests of
Europe.

‘This judgment that I pass on my own actions will be
confirmed, I hope, by impartial men; and if this Justice is
denied me when I am no more, the knowledge that it is due
to me will suffice to ensure the calm of my last days.’

He then went on to give orders that his memoirs should
not be published until thirty years after his death. He had
always timed his actions carefully. That had been his
supreme art. He would continue to exercise it even from the
grave. The greater part of the memoirs hhd been written
in the early days of the Restoration, when legitimacy had
been the watchword. It would not do tp publish them under
Louis-Philippe. But more than two volmnes of them had
been written while Louis-Philippe was King. Did Talley-
rand foresee the future so clearly as to be aware that homage
to Louis-Philippe would not be popular under the regime
that should succeed him ? Did he foresee already the revolu-
tion of 1 848, the Second Republic, and the Second Empire .?
And is it possible to believe that those weary, sunken eyes
saw further still ? Thirty j^ears from his death was to be the
length of the interval. Thirty years would bring France to
1868, to within two years of Sedan and the downfall of the
Second Empire. In 1868 the Empire was crumbling. It
mattered little what was published then.

But his conduct towards Napoleon would always matter,
because to the majority of Frenchmen the name of Napoleon
would be always dear. A further paragraph was added to
the declaration.

‘Placed by Bonaparte himself in the position of having
to choose between France and him, I made the choice
dictated by ‘the first of all duties, but bitterly regretting my
inability to combine in one affection, as in the past, his
interests and those of my country. None the less shall I

THE LAST TREATY 353

remember until my last hour that he was my benefactor,
for the fortune that I leave to my nephews comes to me in
great part from him. My nephews ought not only never to
forget this, but to teach it to their children, and they to their
children so that the memory of it shall become perpetual in
my family, from generation to generation in order that if
ever a man bearing the name of Bonaparte shall be in a
financial position where he has need of .aid or assistance, he
shall obtain from my immediate heirs or from their de-
scendants every kind of assistance that it may be in their
power to give him.’

Thus he justified his conduct towards Napoleon and thus
with hardly human prescience he selected a date for the
publication of his memoirs, when the Second Empire would
be falling into greater discredit than the First had ever
reached. His plan was defeated when h'e was no longer there
to defend it, and his fame has suffered in consequence, All
his papers were left to the Duchess of Dino and, failing her,
to Bacourt, who had been a member of the Embassy in
London and who, there is every reason to believe, was one
of her lovers. She died in 1862, six years before the date
fixed for the publication of the memoirs, Bacourt died three
years later, and before dying he imposed upon the trustees,
to whom he confided the memoirs, the prohibition to publish
them until 1888. Those trustees were also dead before the
time arrived and the Duke de Broglie, grandson of Madame
dc Stael, on whom ultimately the duty fell, did not publish
the memoirs until 1891.

‘ The moment so carefully selected by Talleyrand had been
missed. In 1891 the failure of the Second Empire was for-
gotten, and Frenchmen looking back over a period of a
hundred years saw little to arrest their admiration until they
came to Waterloo. While the legend of Napoleon had
soared that of Talleyrand had sunk. Those who had ap-

THE LAST TREATY

35 +

predated him in his old age, Roper-Collard, Barante, Balzac,
Lamartine, Thiers, and Gluizot in France, Wellington,
Holland, and the Grevilles in England, were no more, and
the generation that had known them and that might have
contained his biographer and apologist had perished. The
biography could not be written until the memoirs appeared.

The French have long memories; for them politics are the
continuation of history. Royalist, Bonapartist, Republican
— most French writers belong to one of these categories.
Talleyrand belonged to none of them and has therefore never
found his defender in France. Yet it is not for the French
to decry him, for every change of allegiance that he made
was made by France. Not without reason did he claim that
he never conspired except when the majority of his country-
men were involved in the conspiracy. Like France he
responded to the ideals of 178$ and believed in the necessity
of the Revolution; like France he abominated the Terror,
made the best of the Directory, and welcomed Napoleon
as the restorer of order and the harbinger of peace: like
France he resented tyranny and grew tired of endless war
and so reconciled himself to the return of the Bourbons.
When Charles x proved Impossible he turned rather wearily,
but not without hope, to Louis-Philippe, and once again he
reflected the mood of his country. Constitutional monarchy,
the maintenance of order and liberty at home, peace in
Europe, and the alliance with England, to these, principles
he Was never false— and he believed that they were of greater
importance than the Kings and Emperors, Directors and
Demagogues, Peoples and Parliaments that he served.

He was as little concerned as ever with the opinion of his
contemporaries, but as he came nearer to the end his. dis-
quietude concerning the judgment of history was augmented
by his own dissatisfaction with himself. He could shrug his
shoulders at the disapproval of George Sand who repaid

THE LAST TREATY 355

hospitality at Valen^ay by an abusive article in the Revue
des Deux Monies. He knew enough about George Sand to
value her opinion at its proper worth. It was his own
opinion that troubled him now.

On 2nd February 1837 he wrote: ‘Eighty-three years
gone byl I do not know that I am satisfied when I consider
how so many years have passed, how I have filled them.
What useless agitations, what fruitless endeavours ! tiresome
complications, exaggerated emotions, spent efforts, wasted
gifts, hatreds aroused, sense of proportion lost, illusions
destroye'd, tastes exhausted! What result in the end? Moral
and physical weariness, complete discouragement and pro-
found disgust with the past. There are a crowd of people
who have the gift or the drawback of never properly under-
standing themselves. I possess only too much the opposite
disadvantage or superiority; it increases with the gravity of
old age.’

These were gloomy thoughts, but a man’s brightest
moments and most cheerful reflections are not those which
he commits to paper. Dorothea noticed how these moods of
pessimism and depression increased, ‘but,’ she wrote, ‘as
soon as there are people present, his mind takes new life,
his conversation regains its vivacity and the solidity of his
intellect and of his intelligence strike all who meet him.’

In the spring of this year took place the marriage of
the Duke of Orleans. Talleyrand, the Duchess of Dino, and
Pauline were all invited to Fontainebleau for the wedding.
The chateau was crowded. Dorothea and Pauline had to
share a bedroom, Margaret de Flahaut and her daughter
. shared another. The quarrel had been made up in the
.previous year on the melancholy occasion of the death of one
of Flahaut’s daughters. Even now relations though friendly
were hardly satisfactory. Lady Granville writing to her
brother on 29th December 1836 reported, ‘Talleyrand is

THE LAST TREATY

358

•whole assembly rose to their feet. Supported on the arms
of two lackeys the old man slowly made his way to the place
reservedi for him. In his deep voice, as firm and resonant as
ever, he began to read. He used no spectacles, and every
word was clearly audible.

He traced the not excessively distinguished career of
Reinhard from its beginnings, laying stress on, the fact that
he had originally studied for the Church and insisting that
theological studies formed an excellent preparation for
diplomacy. The audience immediately understood that it
was of himself rather than of Reinhard that he was speaking.
He followed, however, the progress of the latter until it
reached its apogee in his brief tenure of the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs. He had at one time been a clerk in the
Ministry, he had filled many positions abroad, first secretary,
consul-general, minister plenipotentiary. Briefly the quali-
ties required for each of these functions were described, and
Reinhard’s possession of them noted. One gift only had
been lacking. His mind worked slowly. To express him-
self properly he had to be alone. Conversation did not
afford 'him the time that he required. The audience could
not fail to draw the contrast between Reinhard and one who
in conversation had never met his equal.

Then folio-wed a description of the perfect Minister for
Foreign Affairs. ‘A sort of instinct, always prompting him,
should prevent him from compromising himself in any dis-
cussion. He must have the faculty of appearing open, while
remaining impenetrable; of masking reserve with the manner
of careless abandon; of showing talent even in the choice of
his amusements. His conversation should be simple, varied,
unexpected, always natural and sometimes naive; in a wbrd,
he should never cease for an instant during the twenty-four
hours to be a Minister for Foreign Affairs.

‘Yet all these qualities, rare as they are, might not suffice,

THE LAST TREATY 359

if good faith did not give them the guarantee which they
almost always require. Here there is one thing that I must
say, in order to destroy a widely spread prejudice: no,
diplomacy is not a science of deceit and duplicity. If good
faith is necessary anywhere it is above all in political trans-
actions, for it is that which makes them firm and lasting.
People have made the mistake of confusing reserve with
deceit. Good faith never authorises deceit but it admits of
reserve; and reserve has this peculiarity that it increases
confidence.’

These simple but profound truths, the manner in which
they were uttered, the great age and the astonishing career
of the speaker, produced a deep impression on the audience.
Victor Cousin exclaimed that it was better than Voltaire,
and all who were present shared his enthusiasm. The press
the next morning was, with few exceptions, extremely favour-
able. Talleyrand was pleased, and even Dorothea, though
she could not bear a word of criticism, was fain to be content.

S

Talleyrand had said his good-bye to this world, he hid
now to consider his reception in the next. The sands were
running out. He had hot three months to live. In the
declaration of October 1836 he had affirmed his adherence
to the Catholic faith. It has been seen how, at the time of
his secularisation by the Pope, he had done his utmost to
obtain a dispensation that would allow him to marry, and
how completely he had failed. Since that date he had never
been -reconciled to the Church, At Valen^ay he would
regularly attend mass on Sundays and festivals, but he never
went to confession nor was admitted to communion.

The Duchess of Dino, who became Duchess of Talley-
rand at the end of March, owing to the death of her fathe^

THE LAST TREATY

356

very well. Madame de Dino in great beauty. She and Meg
meet and dine each other, but it is like the meetings in cock-
and-bull fights. The night before last Dino ran into Lieven’s
salon, saw Meg and shrieked: “Oui, ma ch^re, c’dtait un cri
dpouvantable.” She did not apologise or say for why.
Explanations have been asked. Dino says it was a “cri de
surprise,” Meg says it was a “cri d’horreur.” ’

Perhaps this was the reason why the Flahauts did not
enjoy their visit to Fontainebleau for they returned ‘in a
most hostile humour.’ They were always quarrelling with
somebody, always standing upon their dignity, and Lady
Granville thought that they had resented having to share a
room and had been disappointed at not receiving any special
marks of favour.

■ Dorothea de Dino, on the other hand, thoroughly enjoyed
herself. Pauline waS delighted to share her mother’s room
and they were both pleased to notice the respect which every-
body paid to Talleyrand and the strength with which he sup-
ported the long and tiring ceremonies. He left with Pauline
before the last of the festivities were concluded because he
considered it his duty to entertain at Valen9ay the Arch-
bishop of Bourges, who was making a tour through his
diocese. •

Montrond was ill that summer. Talleyrand called on
him every morning while he was in Paris. He could not
climb the several flights of stairs to his lodging in the Rue
Blanche, but he would wait at the bottom to receive a
message. On one occasion, however, when he was requested
by the King to convey to Montrond the announcement of
the Duke of Orleans’s engagement, he caused himself to be
carried to the top of the house. People wondered why the
King should pay such an honour to an old reprobate like
Montrond, and charitably ascribed it to the fact that
Montrond had information about the earlier life of the

THE LAST TREATY

357

King which it would have been a pity to publish. For
gossip of this sort we are indebted to Mr, Thomas Raikes
who, having bought his way into London society and paid '
too high for the privilege, was now economising in Paris
and industriously collecting tittle-tattle about the great and
setting it down in his diary.

In August Montrond had recovered sufficiently to leave
Paris. He went to Valen?ay, where Dorothea had learnt to
put up with him, because she knew that Talleyrand still
preferred his conversation to that of anyone else. It was the
last autumn that the two old friends were to spend together,
and Talleyrand had an interior warning that it was so. Tt
causes me,’ he wrote, ‘such an excessive and extraordinary
pang of regret to tear myself away from Valen9ay this time,
that it seem.s like a presentiment.’ It was.

4

At the end of 1837 there occurred the death of Reinhard
who had succeeded Talleyrand at the Ministry fior Foreign
Affairs under the Directory. Subsequently he had filled
various minor diplomatic posts. Talleyrand determined to
deliver at the Academy of Moral and Political Science a
funeral oration in memory of Reinhard, and to take this
opportunity of giving to the world some of the conclusions
that he had reached as the result of his long political experi-
ence. ‘It will be my farewell to the public,’ he said. In vain
his friends, who were anxious for his health, attempted to
dissuade him from the effort. When his doctor said that he
would not answer for the consequences, ‘Who asked you
to answer for them ?’ was the reply.

On the 3rd of March the ceremony took place. It was
felt to be an event of historical importance. All Paris was
present. When the ushers announced ‘The Prince,’ the

THE LAST TREATY

360

in-law, Talleyrand’s younger brother, was in ceaseless
anxiety about the state of her uncle’s soul. Brought up as a
Protestant herself she had long since embraced the Catholic
faith and became ever more religious as she grew older.
Pauline shared to the full her mother’s distress, but neither
woman dared mention the subject to Talleyrand; so much
awe was mingled with the affection that they bore him. They
sought therefore every occasion to turn the conversation in
the direction of religion, but for long they did so without
success.

The following is Madame de Boigne’s version of a story
which she received from the Duke de Noailles, who was at
one time a close friend of Dorothea’s. Uncle and niece
had attended mass together on some great festival of tlie
church. As they drove away she said to him: ‘It must have
a curious effect on you to hear a mass.’

‘No, why.?’

‘I don’t know, it seems to me’— she became embarrassed
—‘I thought that you wouldn’t feel quite the same as other
people.’

‘I ? But exactly the same; and why not?’

‘But after all, you have made priests.’

‘Not- many.’

There is another incident described by Madame de Dino
herself. In August 1836 she was playing piquet with Talley-
rand at Valenfay during a thunderstorm. After a particularly
loud clap of thunder he asked her of what she was thinking.
She seized the opportunity. ‘If there had been a priest in
the room I should have confessed,’ she said: ‘I am afraid of
sudden death. To die unprepared, to carry, with lAe my
heavy burden of sin terrifies me, and however careful one
may be to live properly, one cannot do without reconciliation
and forgiveness.’ Talleyrand did not say a word, but con-
tinued to play in silence.

THE LAST TREATY 361

The Archbishop of Paris, who had been a close friend of
Talleyrand’s uncle, the Cardinal, believed that the latter had
bequeathed to him the solemn duty of bringing his erring
nephew back to the fold. He had thought that the death of
Talleyrand’s wife would provide a suitable occasion for
opening the question and had written to him at the tinae
suggesting an interview. Talleyrand had been pleased and
touched. He had replied that unfortunately his health would
not permit of an interview immediately, but that he would
call in the following week. Next week, however, something
else occurred to prevent the visit, and despite the influence
of Dorothea, ever at his elbow, the interview did not take
place.

In December of 1837 Dorothea herself fell seriously ill
at Rochecotte. According to one of Lady Granville’s letters
she was suffering from a paralytic stroke. Talleyrand was
with her at the time, and when she recovered, she reproached
him with having concealed from her the gravity of her con-
dition. Had she been aware of it, she explained, she would
have sent for the local cur6. ‘What, that drunkard?’ was,
according to Madame de Boigne, Talleyrand’s reply. But
Madame de'Dino herself says— and both versions may be
true — that he merely expressed some surprise, and asked:
‘You have got as far as that, have you, and how did you
arrive there?’ She told him, and added that amotlg many'
other serious considerations she had not omitted that of her
social position; she felt that her high rank imposed an
obligation upon her. He ‘interrupted her with the words :
‘In truth, there is nothing less aristocratic than unbelief.’

These words should be borne in mind, when reading the
account of what followed. A great change had come over
the attitude of the upper classes towards religion since the
French Revolution. Doubt had proved to be the friend of
disorder, and atheism the parent of anarchy. The Holy

THE LAST TREATY

362

Alliance had not been merely a fantasy of Alexander’s ill-
ordered brain. Everywhere those who desired the mainten-
ance of the existing order turned to the faith of their fathers
as the safest guarantee for the future. Ethical convictions,
none the less firmly held because of their political origin,
appeared on the surface as a change in manners and a new
tone in society. To be sceptical was no longer the fashion,
and Talleyrand had been a man of fashion all his life.

Two days after the incident that has been referred to
above Talleyrand himself reopened the subject of religion
and asked his niece to repeat the account of her conversion.
When she had ended he looked at her steadily — ‘You do
believe then?’ he asked. ‘Yes, Monsieur, firmly,’ she
replied. He said no more at the time. She began to hope,
but she realised that the task of bringing him back into the
Church was not one to be entrusted to a drunken parish
priest.

He was fond, during these last years, of going for long
drives in Paris with Pauline. He would revisit the scenes
of incidents in his past life. What sights he had witnessed
in those streets of Paris 1 How many secret memories those
old houses held for him I The girl at his side Wag well able
to appreciate the privilege of listening to such reminis-
cences, but sometimes she would talk herself, and often in
her conversation would occur the name of her confessor, the
Abbd Dupanloup. She was at the age of hero worship and
the enthusiasm ,of the young is infectious. Talleyrand’s
interest was aroused, and at last he said that he would Hke
to meet this Abbd of whom he had heard so much.

6

DupanloUp was a man of imposing appearance, great
eloquence and saintly character. 'He was now thirty-six

I THE LAST treaty 363

years of age and he was to play a considerable part in the
ecclesiastical life of France. He has left a full and detailed
account of all that follows.

When he first received an invitation to the Rue St.
Florentin he refused it. Like all who did not know Talley-
rand, especially those who held sincere religious beliefs, he
felt strongly prejudiced against him. He knew that if he
were to dine there, the news would appear in all the papers
on the morrow, as actually happened, and form the subject
of general comment. He mistrusted Talleyrand’s sincerity,
feared his intellectual superiority, and had no wish to enter
the great world of politics ahd fashion.

Talleyrand was annoyed by his refusal. ‘They told me
the Abb^ Dupanloup was an intelligent naan,’ he said, 'if It
were true he would come; he would have understood the
importance of his entry into this house.’ The invitation,
however, was repeated, and could not be refused a second
time. The Archbishop of Paris probably insisted on its
acceptance.

The dinner took place on Sunday, i8th February. They
were twenty at table.^ Dupanloup was conquered from the
first. ‘Imagine my surprise. I expected that the conversation
would doubtless be seemly, it was, in fact, actually religious;
I will say even ecclesiastical. M. de Talleyrand talked much
of sermons and of living preachers: he quoted several fine
passages and beautiful sayings of preachers he had heard in
his youth. ... I noticed particularly how apropos, with
what exquisite taste and grace his quotations were intro-
duced.’

Everything he said delighted the Abbd, whether he were
praising, tib^.geacr'psity of the Archbishop, condemning
the hearflb&P^ English— due to the aridity of

Protestantism^^ 4^1oring jdie irrellgion of the age; and
when the good man Wt tjie house he said to himself; ‘That

THE LAST TREATY

34

was certainly one of the most edifying conversations that
have taken place in Paris to-day; there only lacked a cross
upon his chest to convince me that I was talking to one of
the most venerable bishops in France.’

Talleyrand’s comment upon Dupanloup, eagerly awaited
by Dorothea and Pauline, was concise. ‘I like your Abb6,’
he said, and added the untranslatable phrase: ‘II salt vivre.’
The anxious women were satisfied, for they knew how
much importance he attached to the quality that the words
described.

There was a passage in the speech on Reinhard which
referred to ‘the religion of dilty.' When rehearsing the
speech with Madame de Dino, Talleyrand pointed with a
smile to the phrase and said: ‘That bit will please the Abbd
Dupanloup.’ It did please him; and together with the praise
of theology as a training for diplomats, emboldened the
Abbd to call again at the Rue St. Florentin. He was received
in private and held a long and intimate conversation with the
Prince, but still hesitated to broach the subject that was in
both their minds.

Encouraged by such a reception the Abbd’s next step was
to send a copy of a book that he had written on Fdnelon,
accompanied by a letter which, in admirably guarded lan-
guage, faintly hinted at a parallel between the careers of
Fdnelon and Talleyrand. Both were noblemen who had
entered the Church; both had been educated at Saint
Sulpice; both had had difEculties with the Pope; F^nelon
had admitted his errors.

Talleyrand sent for Dorothea when he received this letter
and asked her to read it aloud to him. Towards the end,
where there was a touching reference to Pauline, she was
overcome by tears. ‘Finish reading it,’ he exclaimed, with
some asperity. ‘There is nothing to cry about. All this is
serious.’ When she had read it, he saici; ‘If I fell seriously

THE LAST TREATY 365

ill I should send for a priest. Do you think the Abb^
Dupanloup would come with pleasure.?’ She said that she
was sure he would, but that it would serve little purpose
until Talleyrand had been received back into the Church.
‘Yes, yes,’ he answered, ‘there is sometliing I must do with
regard to Rome, I know; I have been thinking of it for some
time.’

Talleyrand replied to the Abba’s letter and sent him
an elzevir edition of the Imitation oj Christ. Two more
interviews took place. They were friendly, intimate, almost
affectionate. The most serious matters were discussed.
They skirmished round the great question but neither would
open it. The Abb^ was perhaps still too much in awe of the
Prince, and the Prince, a diplomatist to the last, believed in
placing the lead in the hand of his opponent.

One day as Madame de Dino was about to leave the
house and was going to visit the Archbishop, Talleyrand took
from a drawer a sheet of paper, covered on both sides with
his own handwriting, £uid marked with many erasures. He
handed it to her, remarking casually that it would ensure
her a good reception where she was going. It was, in fact,
his own retractation; the first draft, as it were, of his treaty
with heaven. The Archbishop kept the paper, of which no
copy exists, expressed his great satisfaction, but added that
he would re-draft it in more canonical form.

Talleyrand’s three great errors in the eyes of the Church
were his acceptance of the civil constitution of the clergy,
his ordination of bishops, and his marriage. He considered
that he had an excuse for each of them, and while he was
.prepared to make a general admission of guilt, he was
unwilling to subscribe to a catalogue of crimes.

366

THE LAST TREATY

7

On llth May there were several people dining at the ’
Rue St. Florentin— the Princess de Lievenj the Duke de
Noailles, Montrond, and others. Their host complained of
the cold, the fire failed *to warm him, and he had his chair
moved into another room where he suffered an attack of
violent sickness and shivering. When it had passed he
insisted on the company rejoining him, and once more took
his part in the conversation.

The next day it was decided that he was suffering from
anthrax in the lumbar region, and an operation was advised.
This took place on the 14th. He bore it with unflinching
courage. He had schooled himself to conceal physical as
well as mental emotion. When the pain was most intense he
exclaimed : ‘Do you know that you are hurting me very much.’

That same evening he again received visitors, although
he was feverish and suffering. He talked calmly and gaily,
jesting about the sensation produced by the operating-knife,
and delighting to tell how his dog had had to be shut out of
the room to prevent him from flying at the surgeon. He had
always loved dogs, and was particularly attached to the one
then in his possession.

The next morning he was worse. The Abbd Dupanloup,
summoned in haste, arrived early. The doctor whispered in
his ear: ‘If you can do anything, do it quickly. Time
presses.’ He brought with him the Archbishop’s corrected
version of the document received from Madame de Dino.
It consisted now of two parts, the one a declaration and the
other a letter to the Pope. These had to be signed before,
the penitent could be granted the consolations of religion.

When the Abb^ referred to these papers he was surprised
and discouraged by the firmness with which Talleyrand
replied that there could be nothing to add to his original

THE LAST TREATY

367

statement, over which he had deeply reflected, and which
contained everything that was necessary. He was, however,
not without difficulty, persuaded to read the Archbishop’s
version. This he did seated upon the edge of the bed,
supported by cushions. The wound in his back rendered
it painful for him to lie down, and he spent most of his last
days in this position. T must say,’ writes the Abbd, ‘that at
this moment his appearance was really imposing; his face
was calm, serious, meditative; his hand supported his fore-
head; his eyes were fixed and thoughtful; and I, silent and
motionless, watched his face, which remained unmoved,’

When he had finished reading, after a moment’s silence,
he raised his head. ‘Monsieur the Abb^,’ he said, ‘I am
Very well satisfied Mth this paper.’ The Abba’s heart leapt,
All was well, he thought, all was settled. But he did not
know his man. It was not so that the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, the Grand Chamberlain, the King’s Ambassador,
was accustomed to conclude affairs of high importance.
‘Will you be good enough to leave this paper with me,’ he
continued calmly. ‘I desire to read it again 1’ The Abb4
in great distress, could not refuse and dared not protest. He
remained some time, talking earnestly to the Prince of
religious matters, but although their conversation was
intimate and personal, the Abb^ left with a heavy heart for
the documents remained unsigned.

The following morning the Abb6 was sent for yet earlier.
The condition of the invalid was hopeless. Dorothea and
Pauline were in despair. All their efforts now were con-
centrated on securing his reconciliation to the Church before
it was too late. They knew that the hours were few and that
no minute must be wasted. _ The account given by the Abb^
of the emotion felt and the courage shown by both is ex-
tremely moving. The mother urged the daughter to use
her influence. At first she seemed too overcome by misery

THE LAST TREATY

368

but ‘the strength of God descended into her soul/ and
when she had received his blessing this ‘visible angel of the
old man’ passed into the death chamber. When she re-
appeared, after a lengthy interval, she was smiling through
her tears, and she told the Abbd to go in.

The Abb6 first expressed his sympathy with the sufferer.
T thank you,’ was the reply, spoken with an ‘air of in-
describable kindness and benevolence.’ Then the Abbd
grew eloquent; he felt inspired. The importance of the
occasion, the urgency of the task, the sanctity of his office,
the respect and the affection which he now felt for the man
whose soul he held himself charged to save, all contributed
to lend fervency to the words of the great preacher. ‘I shall
never forget the veritable outburst of gratitude depicted in
his face, the blessed eagerness of his regard while he listened
to me. ‘Yes, yes, I am willing to do all that,’ he said, offering
me his hand and seizing mine with the most genuine
emotion. ‘I am willing — you know it, I told you so before
—I said so to Madame de Dino.’ He continued to talk
eagerly and seemed about to enter on a general confession,
when the Abbd reminded him that before doing so he must
signify his formal reconciliation by signing the documents.
‘That is right,’ he replied, ‘then I want to see Madame de
Dino; I want to re-read these two documents with her; I
want to add something to them; and then we will finish.’

It was another disappointment for the Abbd, a further
delay. The conversation with Dorothea produced no more '
satisfactory result. He still maintained that he wished to
add something before signing, but said that he was too tired
to do so at present. When he was urged to sign while he
could still hold the pen he told them not to be anxious and
assured them that he would not be too late. To the Abb^,
who remained by his bed most of the day in prayer, he said
frequently: ‘You do me good,’ and once he added: ‘I should

THE LAST TREATY 365

have already done what I have promised you if I were not in
such pain.’

Meanwhile all Paris was waiting for the news, and the
anteroom was full of those who hoped to be its first bearers.
They were oddly assorted, those who kept that long vigil,
and representative of the society he had frequented all his
life. If sometimes the itmrmur of their conversation reached
his ears he would not have resented their presence. Old
statesmen were there and political intriguers, young women
and those who followed them; one lady reclining on a sofa
listened to whispers which were not all concerned with the
tragedy of the adjoining room; sometimes even a light laugh
escaped instantly suppressed with frowns. Montrond sat
apart from all in gloomy silence.

Whether he would sign was the main subject of discussion.
Some maintained that to do so would be to wipe out his whole
life with one stroke of the pen, and protested that it would
be an unpardonable betrayal of the eighteenth century;
but Royer-Collard, that stern old Christian, reassured the
anxious. ‘Fear nothing,’ he said, ‘he who has always been
the peacemaker will not refuse to make his peace with God
before he dies.’ These words were repeated to Talleyrand.
With great animation he exclaimed: ‘I do not refuse, I do
not reftise’; but still he delayed.

Towards eight o’clock in the evening the Abbd Dupanloup
feared he was sinking. Determining to make another effort
he said that he was about to visit the Archbishop, whose mind
would be set at rest If the- hOWs 'were brought to him that the
documents were signed,’ Monseigneur the Arch-

bishop,’ replied the Prince, ‘tdlthWfhat everything shall be
done.’ ‘But when shall that be, good uncle?* exclaimed
Pauline, who was kneeling by his side. ‘To-morrow,’ he
replied, ‘between five and six o’clock in the morning.’ The
Abb^ began to say that he would inform the Archbishop

2A

THE LAST TREATY

j7o

that there was this hope, but he was sharply interrupted by
the dying man— ‘Don’t say this hope, say this certitude: it
is positive.’ ‘These words were pronounced with such
extraordinary force and firmness,’ wrote the Abbd nine
months later, ‘that I can still feel my astonishment and that
I can hear them still.’

The Abb6 retired. Later that night, the doctor having
expressed some uncertainty as to whether the patient would
much longer retain the command of his mental faculties,
Dorothea decided that it was her duty to make one more
attempt. Holding a candle in one hand she gently lifted the
curtain of the bed and the dying man saw Pauline standing
beside him with the papers and a pen in her hands. ‘Good^
uncle, you are calm now,’ she said, ‘won’t you sigh these
two papers? You have approved of what is in them. It
will comfort you.’ But the old man replied with all the
obstinacy of a diplomatist who has already made his ultimate
concession: ‘It is not yet six o’clock. I told you that I
would sign to-morrow between five and six in the morning:
1 still promise to do so.’ The young girl blushed like one
reproved for an error, and the tired watchers had to face
another night of torturing suspense.

8

But what was passing in the mind of the sulferer during
the long hours of that night? He had been brought up to
the priesthood and such early training is seldom completely
eradicated. His practice of religion had been negligent but
he had never professed infidelity, and we must believe the
Abbd Dupanloup’s testimony that his mind was now
seriously occupied with spiritual matters. He had always
set store by correct behaviour and it was only seemly and
fitting that a Talleyrand-P^rigord should die in the faith of

THE LAST TREATY 371

his fathers, the faith in which he had been born and bred.
Above all, it was the dearest wish of those who were dearest
to hirri, the last service that he could render them on earth.
Never can there have been stronger or more imperative
reasons for the fulfilment of a simple task, never can there
have been less ground for the least delay. Why then this
astounding procrastination That his intelligence was in no
way darkened seems to be established by all the evidence.
There was no moment of delirium, nor was it the peevish-
ness of second childhood that made him still seek postpone-
ment and select so strange an hour for such a solemn act.
To avoid haste had always been with him a rule of diplomacy,
and he had always warned the young against excess of zeal.
But sui^ly haste presented no danger now and zeal could
not be excessive when the salvation of his soul was at stake ?
It is possible that he still clung to some hope of recovery ^
it is even thinkable that, as he lay there, he imagined what
form Montrond’s mockery would take of the death-bed con-
version, sarcastic references to the lost sheep, the penitent
thief, the prbdigal son. He may also have been reluctant
to have it thought he was afraid, and that if was the fear of
death which was dictating conduct which would seem to
some lik? a betrayal of principles once held by that young
Abbd who knelt at the feet of Voltaire in the age of reason,
when it had been so sweet to live.

But these are only conjectures. The May morning was
breaking. At half-past four Dupanloup, ‘trembling with
emotion,’ returned to Talleyrand's bedside. He found already
there ‘those guardian angels whom God had given him.’
They feared that he might no longer have the strength to
hold the pen, an eventuality which had been foreseen by the
Archbishop, who, lest there should be any • doubt as to
exactly what took place, had arranged for witnesses of
unimpeachable integrity to be present. Carriages were

THE LAST TREATY

372

despatched through the empty streets to collect them, the
Duke de Poix, the Count de Sainte-AulairCj Barante, Royer-
Collard, and Mol6. When they had all arrived they gathered
in the doorway dividing the two rooms whence they could
observe what passed.

Talleyrand was the first to speak. He greeted those who
were present with a slight smile and inclination of the head,
and inquired what time it was. When somebody replied
that it was six the scrupulous Dupanloup felt it his duty to
correct the statement and to say that it was but little past five.

There was a pause and then a little girl, dressed all in
white, timidly entered the room. She was the daughter of
that mysterious Charlotte whom Talleyrand had brought
up in his house and had married to one of his relatives. She
was going, on this morning, to her first communion, and the
scene had been previously arranged by the Abbd Dupanloup.
Falling on her knees by the bedside, she said: ‘My uncle,
I am going to pray to God for you; I ask your blessing.'
‘My child,’ he answered, ‘I wish you much happiness in
your life and if I could contribute to it in any way I would
do so with air my heart.’ ‘You can,’ said Dorothea, ‘by
blessing her.’ He stretched out his hand and did so ;^he child
burst into tears. As she was led away he turned to one of those
who were supporting him, and said: ‘There you have the two
extremities of life : she is going to make her first communion—
and I—’ he did not finish the phrase. Washe thinking, perhaps,
even in that solemn moment, of the little child’s grandmother,
whom he had loved so long ago and whose honour he had pre-
served So carefully that history does not know her name
Soon afterwards the clock struck six: the hour had
arrived. Dorothea bringing him the papers, reminded him
that he knew all that they contained, and asked whether he
wished that they should be read again. ‘Yes, read them,’
he said, and sitting on the edge of the bed, with eyes shut

THE Last treaty 37J

and one hand holding the pen aloft, he listened. The room
was full and the Abb6 feared lest the terms of the statement
might prove too humiliating for the Prince’s pride. There
seems to have been little cause for his apprehension.
Nothing was referred to in detail; no particular act was
mentioned for which forgiveness was asked; there was no
admission of specific error. He regretted the grievous sins
of the devolution and his own share in them, he deplored the
harm and sorrow they had caused the Church. He had never
ceased to regard himself as the son of the Church; he submitted
himself entirely to the Church’s discipline and doctrine.

The letter to the Pope was couched in language equally
indefinite and put forward one important plea in his defence.
‘The respect,’ so it ran, ‘that I owe to the authors of my
being does not forbid me to say that all my youth was
dedicated to a profession for which I was not born.’ When
the reading was ended he dipped his pen into the ink and
firmly affixed to both documents his full signature, which
he reserved for stafe papers of the first importance— Charles-
Maurice, Prince de Talleyrand.

They asked him how the documents were to be dated.
He replied: ‘The week of my speech at the Academy.’ This
answer, says the Abb^ Dupanloup, had an extraordinary
effect on those present; they were overcome by admiration
of the firmness of his will, the clearness of his mind, the
• precision of his thought which enabled him, almost in the
arms of death, to decide even the details of the great affair
he was engaged in. He had determined that it should not
be alleged that he was no longer in possession of his senses
when he signed the papers. He asked to be reminded of
the date of his speech. They told him 3rd March. ‘Very
well, then,’ he replied, ‘date these the loth so that it shall
be in the same week.’ It was done as he directed.

Now, at last, Dorothea and Pauline felt that their task

THE LAST TREATY

374

was accomplished. Their anxiety was at in end, only their
grief remained. Dupanloup, on the other hand, had still
two duties to perform, to hear the dying man’s confession,
and to grant him absolution.

But there came to the house of death on that spring
morning one more message from the living world which
even at such an hour demanded attention and , seemed
designed to hold down to the earth until the last moment a
mind that had been 'so long occupied with worldly things.
It was announced that the King was coming; and presently
Louis-Philippe, together with Madame Adelaide, arrived.

The interview was brief, but it made a final tax on Talley-
rand’s failing strength. His mind was still clear; his manners
were still perfect. ‘It is a great honour that the King does
to this house, in coming here to-day,’ he said, and then, in
accordance with the rules of Court procedure, he insisted on
presenting all those who were in the room, including the
doctor and the valet, to the King. Louis-Philippe rather
awkwardly expressed his sympaAy, When they withdrew
Talleyrand pressed the hand of Madame Adelaide and
assured her of his affection. After tliek departure he fell
into a stupor that lasted for more than two hours.

At the end of that period the Abb^, who had been torn
with anxiety lest he should die without receiving absolution
after all, succeeded in rousing him. So much had passed
between them at their previous interviews that the hearing*
of his confession was soon completed. Absolution followed.
When it came to the sprinkling of the holy oil he held out
his hands, closed, the palms downwards, murmuring: ‘Do
not forget I am a bishop’.— for it is the right of bishops to
receive extreme unction in this manner, and it was char-
acteristic of him to remember such a detail at such a moment.

When these last offices had been performed he sank
rapidly. He retained the sitting posture to the end. His

THE LAST TREATY 375

room, as well as the anteroom, was full of relations, at-
tendants, and friends. He died, as he had lived, in public.
When they told him that the Archbishop had said that
, morning that he would gladly give his life for him, he replied :
‘Tell him that he has a much better use for it.’ This was
his last civility; these were his final words. Afterwards he
still listened to the prayers that were being recited and gave
signs of comprehending them, until suddenly his head fell
heavily forward on to his chest.

The old diplomatist had set forth upon his last mission.
Some doubts he may have felt as to the country whither he
was travelling, some uncertainty as to the form of govern-
ment that there prevailed; but he had made inquiries of
those best qualified to advise him; he had obtained the most
reliable information available; he had taken, not a moment
too soon, all possible precautions, and he departed with his
credentials in order, his passport signed.

9

Five months later Dorothea de Dino, who had spent the
interval in travel, returned to' Paris. Among her .first
visitors was Montrond, her ancient enemy. He talked to
her for some time in the old bantering spirit. He supposed
that she would abandon the Orleans monarchy now, and
return to her spiritual home, the aristocrats of the Faubourg
St. Germain, who had never recognised the usurper. She
coldly informed him that she intended to do nothing of the
•kind. He rose to go— but suddenly seizing her hand he
begged her to be kind to him, said he was alone in the
world, that he would so much like to be able to talk to her
sometimes about M. de Talleyrand; and then the old sinner
burst into tears and sobbed like a child.

Bibliography and Notes

A-STERisks, marginal numerals and footnotes, which tease the eye
and disfigure the page, have been dispensed with, and an effort has
been made to make plain in the text, whenever possible, the source
from which information is derived. The following notes, however,
may be useful to those who wish to consult for themselves the original
authorities in order to learn more about any particular personality or
Incident.

The author has been greatly assisted by the kindness of Lord
Lansdowne in allowing him to inspect the important collection of
unpublished documents at Bowood, and in giving him the benefit of
his own wide knowledge of the period.

Works dealing with the life of Talleyrand may be classed under four
headings;

(1) Collections of original documents.

(2) Books of libel and gossip.

(3) Essays.

(4) Biographies.

(i) Original Documents. — The most important of those included in
the first category are Talleyrand’s own memoirs, which were published
in five volumes in 1891. They came as a disappointment to people
who had been expecting sensational revelations and a feast of scandal.
Lord Acton, writing in 1880, said that the reason why Talleyrand’s
memoirs could not even then be published was the amount of scandal
they cotitained (see Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone, page 28).
When they proved, on the contrary, to be concerned almost entirely
with politics, some were inclined to question their authenticity; but
of this there can be no doubt. More than three-fifths of the whole
are taken up with official correspondence, and, except in the first
volume, private life is hardly mentioned. An English translation by
Mrs. Angus Hall appeared in 1 892.

Eclaircissemens dcmnls par le C^' Talleyrand d ses Ccncitcyans,
An. VII, a short pamphlet published at the time of his resignation
under the Directory.

Other collections of letters that have beep published are as follows:

377

BIBLIOGRAPHY

378

Correspondance Inldlie du Prince de Talleyrand et du Rot Louis xvin
(1888), edited by M. G, Pallain.

An English translation appeared in 1891.

These letters subsequently were included in Talleyrand’s own
memoirs, Vols. n and in.

La Mission de Talleyrand d Londres en rypa (1889), edited by
M. G. Pallain.

Le Minist'ere de Talleyrand sous le Directoire (iSgi), edited by
M. G. Pallain.

Amlassade de Talleyrand d Londres (1891), edited by M. G. Pallain.

These letters also form part of die last two volumes of Talleyrand’s
memoirs.

Talleyrand d Napollon (1889), edited by P. Bertrand.

Talleyrand Intime (1892). A small collection of letters to the
Duchess of Courland.

(2) Libel and Gossip, — Various volumes purporting to be biographies
of Talleyrand appeared in his lifetime. The earliest of these was
Memoirs of G, M. Talleyrand de PJrigord^ by the author of The
Revolutionary Plutarch,^ published in London in 1805. England was
then at war with France, and no libel was too gross at the expense of
one who was known to be Napoleon’s chief Minister. Murder is the
least of the crimes of which Talleyrand is accused. Neither history
nor fiction, the book is hardly readable, and the portrait drawn of
Talleyrand is analogous to those drawn by Gillray in his caricatures
of Napoleon at this date. Talleyrand is usually in the picture in the
shape of a deformed monster.

The most important of the contemporary works is Monsieur de
Talleyrand,, published anonymously in 1834 (see page 342). The
author was a certain Villemarest, who had served in the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, and who, although disgraced and disgruntled, had had
access to reliable sources of information. It is written from a point of
view violently hostile to Talleyrand, but it does justice to some of his
qualities, particularly to the affection with which he was regarded by
nearly all those who worked under him, and it also acquits him of any
responsibility for Napoleon’s Spanish policy.

Mkmoires du Prince de Talleyrand-Pirigord par' Madame la Comtesse
0 . . . , du C. . , , , published in 1838, shortly after Talleyrand’s
death, while less hostile, is of even inferior value. It is a mixture of
second-rate melodrama and third-hand gossip.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 379

Colmache, who had been Talleyrand’s secretary, published in
London in 1848 Reminiscences of Prince Talleyrand in two volumes,
a gossipy, unreliable work, but not uninteresting.

Souvenirs Intimes sur Monsieur de Talleyrand, by Am^dde Pichot
(1870) is little more than a collection of anecdotes, while U Esprit de
M. de Talleyrand, by Louis Thomas (1909) is merely an anthology
of bans mots.

Les Belles Amies de Talleyrand, by Mary Summer (1893), is an
historical novel, but neither such good history nor such good fiction ■
as Mr. Kipling’s ‘A Priest in Spite of Himself’ in Rewards and Fairies.

(3) Essays. — On 8th, June 1838 Barante pronounced in the
Chamber of Peers his 'Eloge de M. le Prince, Due de Talleyrand.’
It is printed in his Etudes Historiques (1857). A noble tribute in
eloquent but never exaggerated language, it is by no means the ordinary
funeral oration, and is well worth readng.

A year later, at the Academy of Moral and Political Science, the
historian Mignet delivered a lecture, ‘Sur la Vie et les Travaux de
M. le Prince de Talleyrand.’ It was published in his Portraits et
Notices Historiques (1852). This is the first attempt to give an
unbiassed account of Talleyrand, and while the writer finds difficulty
in accepting his conduct towards Napoleon, he is scrupulously fair,
and his final verdict is distinctly favourable.

Lord Brougham, in his Historical Sketches of Statesmen (1839-43),
wrote an essay on Talleyrand, whom he had known and likedj and
Capefigue, in Diplomat es Europlens (1843), does full justice to the
wisdom and consistency of Talleyrand’s foreign policy.

The best accourit of Talleyrand that appeared prior to the publication
of his raemoii s is that contained in Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer’s Historical
Characters ( 1 868). The whole of the first of two volumes is concerned
with Talleyrand considered as ‘The Politic Man,’ Bulwer was a
diplomatist, had lived in the world where Talleyrand was still remem-
bered, and must have met many who had known him. He takes the
favourable view of Talleyrand that was prevalent in such circles at
the time of his death.

Sainte-Beuve, in Nouveaux Lundis (No. 12), devoted a lengthy
essay to ‘M. de Talleyrand,’ which was published separately in 1870,

■ It was written largely in reply to Bulwer, and is definitely hostile to
Talleyrand. Sainte-Beuve was too good a friend to the Second
Empire to do justice to one who had contributed so largely to the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

380

f

downfall of the First. No other French writer of equal standing has
written about Talleyrand, and Sainte-Beuve’s views must therefore
have had great influence on opinion in France.- This is really the
turning point in the history of the Talleyrand legend, and it is curious
that this should have been the very moment that Talleyrand himself
had selected for the publication of his’ memoirs. Had they appeared
then, instead of some twenty years later, his fame would certainly
have benefited.

Lord Acton’s essay on ‘Talleyrand’s Memoirs’ in his Historical
Essays (1906) is disappointing. More interesting, though no better
disposed towards Talleyrand, is Albert Sorel’s article on ‘Talleyrand
et ses Mdmoires,’ published in his Lectures Historiques (1894). He
also wrote an essay on ‘Talleyrand au Congr^ de Vienne’ in his
Essais d'Histoire et de Critique (1895).

In a brilliant volume entitled Romaniisme et Diplomatic^ M. Maurice
Paldologue devotes more tlian a third of his space to Talleyrand,
and traces the growUi of the Talleyrand legend, rightly attributing
their share of responsibility to such imaginative ‘writers as George
Sand, Chateaubriand and Victor Hugo.

In Les Hommes de la Rivolution (1928), Louis Madelin has an
essay on ‘Talleyrand R6volutionnaire,’ which gives an account of that
period of his life. Both these works have been translated into English.

The series of Vies des Hommes lllustres includes a volume entitled
Talleyrand., by Jacques Sindral — a clever essay which has no claims to
be considered a biography.

An increasing appreciation among modern writers of Talleyrand’s
services to Europe is indicated in Le Diplotnate, by Jules Cambon,
translated into English by Christopher R. Turner (1931), and also
in an excellent sketch of Talleyrand in The Peacemakers, by J. G.
Lockart (1933).

(4) Biographies . — Last in date, but first in importance, of the bio-
graphies of 'I'alleyrand, comes the work of G. Lacour-Gayet, in three
volumes, published in 1928, 1930, and 1931. This is, and will
probably remain, the standard work on the subject, and all present and
future students of the life of Talleyrand must be indebted to it.
M. Lacour-Gayet is a great admirer of Napoleon, but he tries
throughout to be fair to Talleyrand with whose policy he cannot
sympathise, and for whose character he can feel no affection.

A biography by Lady Blennerhasset (Grafin Leyden), written in

BIBLIOGRAPHY 381

German, was published in an English translation (two volumes, 1 894),
It is a fair and unbiassed account, more valuable for the earlier than
for the later years.

Bernard de Lacombe is the author of two works, Talleyrand Evlque
<T Autun (1903)) 2,nd La Fie PrivSe de Talleyrand (1910), both of
which are of great value. The latter is particularly interesting and
contains a great deal of matter concerning the last years which had
not previously been published.

Joseph McCabe’s Talleyrand, A Biographical Study (1906), has
the advantage, which Lady Blennerhasset lacked, of having studied
the new material produced by Lacombe. It is written with insight and
sympathy.

Talleyrand et la Sociiti Frangaue, by Ereddric Lolide (1910) is, as
the title implies, concerned mainly with the lighter side of Talleyrand’s
life and might almost be included in the first of these categories.

Talleyrand, the Training of a Statesman, by Anna Bowman Dodd
(1927), contains some interesting illustrations.

CHAPTER one;

Page 1 1. — The quotation in the first paragraph is from the memoirs
of the Duke de Lauzun, which appeared in 1818. Many people,
including Talleyrand, questioned their authenticity, but they bear the
stamp of truth.

Page 23. — Barras, in the first volume of his memoirs, suggests that
the physical resemblance of Talleyrand to Robespierre was due to
similarity of character. He adds that for the same reason NapoleoA
resembled Marat. Memoir ts de Barras (1895), Vol. i, page 151.

Arnault was the author of a book entitled Souvenirs d’un Sexaginaire,
in which he describes Talleyrand as he appeared to him in 1789.

Page 26.— Talleyrand’s work as Agent General of the Clergy is
dealt 'witli at length in Talleyrand Evique d'Autun, by Bernard
Lacombe (1903).

Page 28. — Mirabeau’s leuers from Berlin were published in two
volumes in 1789, dnder the title of Histoire Secrete de la Caur de
Berlin (k Londres— chez S. Vladon, dans Paternoster Row).

The best authority for all the diplomatic history of the period is
Albert Sorel, Europe et la Revolution Franfaise, eight volumes.

j 82

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTER TWO;

Page 30. — Talleyrand’s association with Pitt at Rheims in 1783 is
referred to in Lord Holland’s Foreign Reminiscences (1850). The
author adds in a footnote: ‘My general and long observation of
Talleyrand’s veracity in great and sttiall matters makes me confident
his relation is correct. He may as much, or more, than other diplomats
Suppress what is true; I am quite satisfied he never actually says what
is false, though he may occasionally imply it.’ (Page 36.)

Page 37. — The Count d’Artois confirmed Talleyrand’s account of
what passed between them on this occasion. He referred to the incident
in conversation with Lady Elizabeth Foster at Chiswick in 1805 (see
Ford Granville Leveson Gower — Private Correspondence, Vol. ii,
page 1 1 3).

Page 40. — The authority for Talleyrand’s irreverent remark to'
Lafayette at the Feast of the Federation is Lafayette himself, as
reported by Pasquier. Although they bore no good will towards
Talleyrand, it is not a remark which either of them would have
invented.

Mlmoires du Chancelier Pasquier (1894), Vol. I.

Page 43. — The Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris. Edited
by Anne Carey Morris. Two volumes, London, 1889.

Page 44. — The letter referred to from Lady Sutherland is printed
in Lord Granville Leveson Gower — Private Correspondence., Vol. i,
page 28.

Page 51. — For the mission to London see Le Due de Lauzun
Ifdinkral Sir on) (1791-1792), Correspondance Intime, by Le Comte de
Lort de Sdrignan (1906); also La Mission de Talleyrand d Londres en
ijgz, by G. Pallain (1889).

Page 53 - — Lord Holland, in his Foreign Reminiscences, asserts that
Talleyrand complained to him that Pitt ‘never had the grace to allude
either during his embassy or his “emigration” to their earlief meeting
at Rheims’ (page 35), but in his official letter to Delessart, recounting
his first interview, he states quite definitely the opposite. {La Mission
de Talleyrand 4 Londres, page 55.)

Page 59. — Barhre describes in his memoirs meeting. Talleyrand
dressed for travelling at Danton’s the night of his departure. {Mlmoires
dt B. Barere (1842), Vol. U, page 25.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

383

chapter three;

Page 61. — Miss Burney’s account of Juniper Hall will be found in
Vol. V of the Diary and Letters of Madame D'Arblay (1904).

Page 65.— The memorandum of 25th November is printed in full
in Le Ministlre de Talleyrand sous le Directoire^ by G. Pallain,

Page 68. — Talleyrand’s letters to Shelburne are printed in JA
Mission de Talleyrand d Londres, by G. Pallain.

Page 6g.— The fourth volume of Madame de Genlis’s memoirs
deals with this period in London.

Page 74. — The story of Burr calling on Talleyrand in Paris is to
be found in The Mount Vernon Papers., by Edward Everett (i860),
psige 3595 and is related by Mrs. Anna.Bowman Dodd in Talleyrand,
the Training of a Statesman (1927). She says that it was told her by
a descendant of General Schuyler’s family.

Page 75.— Mme de la Tour du Pin’s memoirs are entitled Journal
d'une Femme de Cinquante Ans.

Page 79. — Cobbett’s account of the interview is contained in Peter
Porcupine.

Page 81. — The Kipling story referred to is ‘A Priest in Spite of
Himself’ in Rewards and Fairies,

CHAPTER FOUR:

Page 8a. — Talleyrand recounts this incident in his memoirs, Vol. i,
page 248. It is the only reference to Madame de Flahaut- contained in
them.

Page 88. — The best accounts of Th6rbse Tallien are contained in
photre Dame de Thermidor, by Arsene Houssaye (favourable), La Belle
Tallien, by Louis Gastine (unfavourable), and a recent semi-historical
work entitled Sca 7 \dalous Princess, by S. B. Whipple (1932).

' Page 89. — Madame de Stael was so indignant when she heard the
American story that she called on Talleyrand, expecting a denial.
Having heard all she had to say he left the room without answering
and did not return. She never forgave him. (Souvenirs du Barm de
Bar ante, Vol. i, page 92.)

Page 89. — Le Beau Moktrond, by Henri Malo (Paris, J9^6), see
also ‘L’Ami de M. de Talleyrand,’ by Henri Welschitiger (La Revue
de Paris, ist February 189S),

BIBLIOGRAPHY

384

Page 91. — The 'Narrative of the Life of a Gentleman Long Resident
in India^ by G. F. Grand, gives the husband’s version of this affair.
This book was privately printed at the Cape of Good Hope in 1814,
and published by the Calcutta Historical Society in 1910. See also
Echoes from Old Calcutta fay H. E. Busteed (Third Edition, 1897), and
Memoirs of Sir Philip Frtincis^ kcb (Vol. n), by J. Parkes and
H. Merivale (1867). Also Memoirs of William Hickey (Vol. ii.

Page 92,. — Madame Grand’s appearance is described in the Mkmoires
de Madame de Rimusai (Vol. n), and there is much gossip about her
in the Mimoires de la Comtesse de Boignt (Vol. i), including a descrip-
tion of how she was attired when she had supper with Edouard Dillon,
page 433-

Page 94. — The best account of the last days of the Directoiy is
contained in L'Avlnement de Bonaparte^ by A. Vandal.

Page 1 13. — Journal du Comte P. -L. Roederer (Paris, 1909),

CHAPTER five:

Page 1 1 9. — Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte.^ by M. de Bourrienne.
London (1836), Vol. 1,'pflge 260, etc.

Page 1 21. — Memoirs of Baron Hyde de Neuville (translated and
abridged by Frances Jackson, two vols). Hyde de Neuville speaks well
of Talleyrand throughout his memoirs. There is an interesting
passage in the second volume (page 212) recounting a chance
meeting in 1827, when Talleyrand referred to this interview with
Napoleon.

Page 123, — The authoritative life of Fouch 4 is by Louis Madelin,
in two volumes (igoo). Memoirs of doubtful authenticity were
published in 1821. See dso Joseph Fouchi, by Stefan Zweig (1930), a
brilliant sketch.

Page 125. — This story is elaborated in Balzac’s Une Tenlhreuse
Affaire.

Page 144. — The story told by Balzac is 'also referred to in the
Mimoires du Baron de Fitrolles^ Vol. i, page 236. On the other hand,
in the Mimoires de Madame de Chastenay (1896), the authoress, who
was present at the house of Madame de Luynes that evening, while
confirming Talleyrand’s presence and mentioning that she left him
gambling when she retired, makes no reference to his dramatic

BIBLIOGRAPHY ’ 385

statement. If it was made after she left, it is probable that she would
have heard of it.

CHAPTER six:

Page 147.— The young Scotsman referred to was Lord John-
Campbell, who became 7th Duke of Argyll (see Intimate Society Letters
of the Eighteenth Century, by the Duke of Argyll (1910), page 515).

Page 149. — The scene at Nikolsburg is described in Bismarck’s
Gedanhen und Erinnerungen (1898), Vol. n, page 47.

Page 153. — The private letter from Fox to Talleyrand is in the
author’s possession.

Page 154. — Sorel, Oubril et Yarmouth d Paris, Vol. vii. Chapter!,
Part VI.

Page 1 56. — Memoir es de la Reine Hortense (i 927), Vol. i, page 269.

Page 161. — The question as to who betrayed the Treaty of Tilsit
to England is thoroughly examined in Four Famous Mysteries, by Sir
John Hall (1922).

Page 165. — Two recent works of importance throw fresh light on
the Spanish question; L'Espagne et NapoUon, by Geoffroy de Grartd-
maison (1908), three volumes, and Napolion et L'Espagne, by Andrd
Fuzier (1930), two volumes. Villemarest, in Monsieur de Talleyrand,
though generally hostile, supports the view that Talleyrand dis-
approved of the Spanish policy from the first.

CHAPTER seven:

Page 170. — The, leading authority on transactions at Tilsit and
Erfurt, and subsequent relations with Russia, is Albert V andal’s Napoleon
et Alexandre i.

Page 184. — See Memoirs of Prince Mettemkh, translated by Mrs.
Alexander Napier (1880}, Vol. n, pages 183 and 193.

Page 187. — An account of the scene of 23 '’*^ January and of
Talleyrand’s subsequent conduct is given in Mdneval’s Memoirs of
Napoleon i, translated by Robert H. Sherard (1894), Vol. ii, page 200.
Accounts are also given in the memoirs of Pasquier, of Madame de
Chastenay, and elsewhere.

2B

386

BIBLIOGRAPHY-

CHAPTER eight:

Page igi.— See Life and Memoirs of Count Molf edited by the
Marquis of Noailles (translated) (1923), Vol. r, page igS.

Page 1 98. — See Mimoires de la Comtesse Potocka. Edited by Casimir
Stryienski (i8g6).

■ Page 198. — A collection of Talleyrand’s letters to the Duchess of
Courland has been published in a volume entitled Talleyrand Intime.

Page 199, — For the relations of the Comte de Flahaut with the
Queen Hortense, see The First Napoleon. Edited by the Earl of Kerry
(1925). Subsequent researches that Lord Lansdowne has made among
the papers at Bowood have enabled hiin to establish that Flahaut was
also engaged in an affair with Caroline Murat, Queen of Naples.
See also Mimoires de la Reine Hortense (1927}, Vol. n, page 9.

■ Page 204 . — Memoir en der Grafin Kiebnannsegge icier Napoleon i
Dresden, 1927.

Page 209 . — Mimoires de Aimle de Coigny, with introduction and
notes by Etienne Lamy (n.d.).

Page 21 2. — For Savary’s evidence, see Mimoires du Due de Rovigo,
Vol. VI, Chapter vii and Chapter xxi.

Page 214. — See Journal d’une Femme de Cinquante Ans., Vol. ii,
Chapter xv.

CHAPTER nine:

Page 219. — See Mimoires et Relations PoUtiques du Baron de
Fltrolles (1884), three volumes. 1

Page 230. — The best and fairest account of Marmont and of his
conduct at this crisis is given ‘in Sainte-Beuve’s Causeries du Lundi.^
Vol. Vi. See also Caulaincourt’s account, given in ‘L’Agonie de
Fontainebleau,’ published in Revue des Deux Afoni/ei, January 1 930.

CHAPTER ten: /

Page 245. — See The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh, i8i2-d8iy^ by
C. K. Webster (1931), page 323.

Page 245 . — Anecdotal Recallectims of the Congress of Vienna^ by the
Comte A. de la Garde-Chambonas, translated by the author of An
Englishman in Paris (1902).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

387

CHAPTER eleven;

Page 265. — See Chateaubriand’s Mimoirss d’Ouire-Tombe,

Part ui, Book v.

Page 269. — See Mimoires du Comte Beugnat (1868), Vol. ii,
page 307 et seq.

Page 274 - — Comte Moll^ I’jSi — sa Fie — ses Mhnoires. Edited
by the Marquis de Noailles. In six volumes. The sixth volume
appeared in 1930- The earlier volumes have been translated — see
note on page 19 1.

Page 274 - — Histolre de Mon Temps. The memoirs of Pasquier were
published in 1 894 in six volumes.

Page 278. — The scene of Fouch^ receiving intimation of his fall is
minutely described by Pasquier as well as by Vitrollcs, and their accounts
agree. In Stefan Zweig’s recent book on Fouchd he asserts that it
took pLace at an evening party before an audience of ‘pretty women,
court dignitaries and young folks as well.’ He quotes no au^ority.

CHAPTER TWELVE;

Page G87. — The diary of James Gallatin was published in 1914
under the title J Great Peacemaker. This extremely entertaining
work is not always reliable. The writer states that -in March 1827
at Crockfords in lyondon, he sat opposite Talleyrand, who ‘looked
more like an ape than ever’ (page 268). Talleyrand was certainly not
in England between the years 1794 and 1830. _ ,

Page 292. — The memoirs of Antonin CarSme are contained in a
volume entitled Les Classiques de la Table.^ published in 1843. A
portrait of Talleyrand serves as frontispiece, and there is much
interesting matter concerning his diet and habits.

Page 292. — The Diary of Frances Lady Shelley. Edited by Richard
Edgcumbe (19x2), Vol. i, page 137. Lady Shelley did not like
Talleyrand, thought him ‘a frightful object to look at,’ and was
surprised that ‘the French ladies find him irresistible.'

Page> 295. — ^The letter from Madame de Sousa referred to is al
Bowood.

Page 299. — See Souvenirs du Baron de Barante (1890), VoL i,
page 208.

Page 308, — Morley recounts that Mr. Gladstone was deeply

BIBLIOGRAPHY

388

shocked by Talleyrand’s comment on the death of Napoleon. ‘Imagine
such a way,’ said Mr. G., ‘of taking the disappearance of that colossal
man!’ (Morley’s Life of Gladstone^ Vol. ni, page 485). The great
rhetorician could not bear to think of such an opportunity for eloquence
being missed.

Page 310. — For the remark about the Duke of San Carlos, see
Journal du Markhal de Caitellane^ Vol. n, page 257.

Page 312. — For Talleyrand’s conduct after Maubreuil’s assault,
see Memoires de la Comtesse de Boigne, Vol. nr, page 202.

CHAPTER THERTEEN!

Page 316. — See Personal Recollections of the Due de Broglie, trans-
lated and edited by Raphael Ledos de Beaufort (1887), Vol. ii,
page 193.

Page 320. — For Ferdinand von Funck’s evidence, see In the Wake
of Napoleon, by Oakley Williams (1931), page 106.

Page 322. — For the American who found London improved in
1830, see Greville’s Vol. n, page 53,

Page 322. — The best account of Aberdeen and Palmerston as
Foreign Secretaries is contained in British Foreign Secretaries, 1807-
1^16, by Algernon Cecil.

Page 327. — For Lord Grey’s view of Talleyrand, see Lord Grey of
the Reform Bill, by G. M. Trevelyan, page 223.

Page 332. — Lord Alvanley called on Talleyrand the morning after
the incident in the House of Lords and witnessed his tears. See Journal
kept by Thomas Raikes, Esq., 18JI-184.7 (1856), Vol. i, page 137.

Page 332. — Cobbett, in Peter Porcupine, says that Talleyrand
(in 1796) ‘knew English as well as I did.’ This is certainly an
exaggeration. Very few people knew English so well as the unschooled
author of Rural Rides.

Page 337. — The unpublished correspondence of the Count de
Flahaut and his wife is at Bowood, together with a number of letters
from Talleyrand to Flahaut.

Page 338. — Prosper Mdrim^e’s letter is quoted by Lacour-Gayet,
in his Talleyrand, Vol. ni, page 259.

Page 341. — For Lady Cowper’s efforts to make peace between
Talleyrand and Palmerston, and for the conclusion of the mission to
Jjondon, sec Chronique de i8ji i J862, by the Duchess of Dino.'

BIBLIOGRAPHY

389

PfS® 34 ^- — "The letters of the Duchess of Dino to Thiers were
published in the Revue de ParUj July- August 1923.

CHAPTER fourteen:

345 - — See Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville (1883),
Vol. I, page ig

349- ‘^See Balzac’s Letiresd I’Etrangere^ Vol. i, page 371, and
Lamartine, Cours Familier de Littlrature^ Vol. x, page 390. Both
quoted by Lacour-Gayet.

350 - — See Letters of Harriet, Countess of Qranville. Edited
by the Hon. F, Leveson Gower (1894), Vol. ii, page 127,

Page 355. — George Sand’s article'entitled ‘Le Prince’ appeared in
the Revue des Deux Mondes of 15th October 1834,

Page 357, — A portion of the Journal keft by Thomas Raikes, Esq.,
from 1831-184.7 (1856).

Page 358. — Talleyrand’s speech on Reinhard is printed verbatim
in French and in English in Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer’s Historical
Characters., Vol. r, page 409.

Page 363. — The Abb 4 Dupanlop’s statement concerning the last
days of Talleyrand is dated 2nd February 1839. It was first published
in the Revue des Deux Mondes, March 1910. See also Bernard de
Lacombe, La Hie Privle de Talleyrand (1910J, and La Conversion et
La Mori de M. Talleyrand, ‘R&it de I’un des cinq t^moins, le Baron
de Barante, recueilli par son petit-fils, le Baron de Nervo’ (1910).

ADDENDUM

CHAPTER twelve;

Page 308. — Henry Edward Fox gives a different account of how
Talleyrand received the news of Napoleon’s death. He says that they
were dining together at the time when the report was received ‘which,
to his credit be it said, seemed to shock the iniquitous old traitor very
much.’ — The Journal of the Hon. Henry Edward Fox, edited by the
Earl of Ilchh8t;er. Both stories may be true as the one may refer to
a report and pther, given in the text, to the official confirmatioa
Talleyrand wOdl^^tihus have had time in the interval to harden his
heart and to prdpd^Ais mot.

Index

Aberdeen, 4.tli Earl of, 322, 326, 327
Addington, Henry, 131, 134
Adelaide, Madame, 316, 325, 347,
374

Alexander, Emperor of Russia, 130,
143, 160, 161, 171, 172, 175-7,
179-81, 192, 203, 205, 223-5,
227, 229, 230, 232, 239, 252,
254-S. 257. 263-4, 279-81, 3ir,

3177 329

Angouleme, Duchess of, 2 1 5
Angoul^me, Duke of, 218
Anne, Queen, 321
Arnault, 23

Arnold, Benedict, 7 r-2
Artois, Count d’, iee Charles x of
France

Augereau, General, 96-7

Bacourt, Adolphe de, 353
Baden, Duke of, 143
Baden, Stephanie, Princess of, 176
Balzac, Honord de, 143, 285, 348,
351. 354

Baiante, Baron de, 298, 354, 372
Barras, Count de, 23, 84-6, 88, 95,
104, 106, 112-15, 118,282
Barthdlemy, Director, 95-97
Bavaria, King of, 163
Bavaria, Prince of, 328
Beauharnaia, Eugdne, 174, 181, 328
Beauhamais, Hortense de, see Hor-
tense, Queen of Holland
Beauhamais, Josephine de, see Joseph-
ine, Empress

Beauhamais, Stdphanie, see Baden
Bemfdotte, General, 108, 195,224

Berry, Duchess of, 287, 302
Berry, Dyke of, 263, 271, 287, 30a
Berthier, Marshal, 153, 185
Besnardi^re, La, 243
Bessborough, Countess of, 132-3
Beugnot, Count, 269-70
Beurnonville, Marquis of, 227
Biron, Duchess of, 60
Biron, Duke of Lauzun, and of, 50,

52

Bismarck, Prince von, 149
Blacas, Count dc, 265-9
Biacons, Marquis dc, 74
Boigne, Madame de, 308, 316, 319,
360-1

Boisgelin, Marquis Bruno de, 209-10,
213

Bonaparte, Jerome, Eiing of West-
phalia, 311

Bonaparte, Joseph, 146, 152, 222
Bonaparte, Louis, King of Holland,

Bonaparte, Luaen, 117-18, 123, 146
Bonaparte, Napoleon, see Napoleon
Borgia, CsEsar, 128
Boswell, James, 321
Bougainville, Louis-Antoinc de, 99
Bouillon, Princess de, 61
Bourbon, Duke of, 140
Bourrienne, F. de, 119
Bright, John, 297
Brionne, Countess dc, 23, 259, 325
Broglie, Duke de, r 19, 299, J16, 353
Brougham, Lord,, 3 27, 333
Bruix, Adjniral, 115-16
Etummell, Beau, 321
Burleigh, Lord, 334
Burney, Dr., 61

391

INDEX

392

Burney, Fanny, sit D’Arblay,
Madame
Burr, Aaron, 73
Byron, Lord,^i

Cijbarrus, Th^rfese, set Tallien, Ma-
dame

Cad on dal, Georges, 139
Calonne, Charles-Alexandre de, 27-8
Cambac^rfes, Jean-Jacques-'Rdgis de,
t2a-3, 143, 163, 197
Canning, George, 161, 310, 345
Careme, 292

Carnot, Lazare-Nicolas-Marguerite,
83. 95-6

Carrel, Armand, 314, 315
Castellane, Boniface de, 85
Castiglione, see Augeteau
Castlereagh, Lady, 225
Castlereagh, Lord, 220, 224, 249,
251, 253, 255, 256, 258, 263,
289,322-3,327,331
Catbarine, Empress of Russia, 50
Caulaincourt, Armand - Augustin -
Louis de, 185, 218, 225, 229-31,
263

Cayla, Madame de, 303, 309
Chalaia, Princess de, i2-i 3
Cbampagny, Count de, 120, 163,
166

Charles ri. King of England, 215
Charles iv. King of Spain, 164
Charles x. King of Fiance, 36, 37,
121, 213, 218, 220, 226, 228-9,
232, 265, 270-1, 285, 302-3, 309,

313. 316, '35+

Charlotte, see Talleyrand
Charlotte, Princess (daughter of
George iv), 328

Chateaubriand, Vicomte de, 140-1,
167, 227, 265-6,273, 306-7, 310,
3 H

ChStre, Countess de la, 61, 244, 276
Chauvelin, Marquis de, 56-7

Chdnier, Andr 4 209
Cli6nier, Marie- Joseph, 77
Choiseul, Auguste de, 17, 20, 47 )

307

Clancarty, Lord, 263, 264
Clanricarde, Lady, 345
Clarendon, Earl of, 334
Cobbett, William, 79, 340
Coigny, Aim^e de, 209-1 3
Cond6, Prince of, 140, 265
Constant, Benjamin, 85-6, 137
Constantine, Grand Duke, 230
Cornwallis, Marquess, 133
Courland, Duchess of, t8i, 198, 201,
204-5, 232, 296, 304, 308
Cousin, Victor, 359
Cowpet, Lady, 342
Crawford, Madame, 308
Creevey, Mr., 332-3, 341
Cromwell, Obver, 100, 12 1
Cumberland, Duchess of, 133
Czartoryski, Prince, 182

Dalberg, 227, 243, 247, 339
Danton, Georges-Jacques, 48, 58-9,
65) 69, 257, 282
D’Aiblay, Madame, 61-2, 350
David, 84

Decazes, Duke, 284, 286, 288-9,
300-3

Delacroix, Charles, 90
Delacroix, Eugene, 90-1, 298
Delacroix, Madame, go
Desajx, General, 125
Dessoles, General, 301
Didier, 285

Dino, Duchess of, 181,198,205,232,
244, 247, 258, 281, 290, 295-6,
314-15, 319, 336-9, 34t-8, 353,
355 - 7 . 359-362. 364-8, 370-3.
375

Dubarry, Madame, 17, 293, 333
Ducos, Roger, Director, r 06, 1 1 3
Dumouriez, General, 55-7

INDEX

393

Dupanloup, Abb^, 362-74
Dupont, General, 207-8, 307
Durham, ist Lord, 337
Duroc, Michel, 166

Enghien, Duke of, 139-45, 187, 265.

F^jjelojj, Franfois dc S. de la Mothe,

. 364

Ferdinand, King of Spain, 164-5,
268, 306

Ferrand, Count, 238
Fitzgerald, Lady Edward, 69, 82
Fitzgerald, Lord Edward, 69, 82
Fitzjames, Duke of, 306
Flahaut, Countess de, 44-6, 68, 82,
^95. 335-7. 355

Flahaut, Count, son of above, 45,
156, 198-200, 261, 295, 334-7,
345

Flahaut, Countess de, wife of above,

335-7. 355

Fleury, Duke of, 209
Fouchd.DukeofOtranto, 107, 123-5,
137, i6i, 183, 185-6, 192, 194-7,
204, 2og, 272-3, 277-9, 281,
286.

Fox, Charles James, 68, 132, 153,

155. 321

Fox, Henry, 89
Fox, Mrs., 132-4

Francis, Emperor of Austria, 143,
258

Francis, Sir Philip, 91-2
Franklin, Benjamin, 333
Frederick Augustus i. King of
Saxony, 196, 252-3, 256-7, 259
Frederick the Great, 156-7
Frederick William iii. King of
Prussia, 239-54, 256, 257, 317,

329

Fr^nilly, Baron, 93
Funck, Ferdinand von, 320

Gaela, Duke of, 188-92
Gallatin, James, 287.
Garde-Chambonas, Count de la, 246
Gaudm, set Gaeta
Genlis, Madame de, 68, 82
Gentz, Friedrich von, 252
George in, 50, 53, 56, 129
George iv, 215, 263
George v, 322

Gladstone, William Ewart, 321
Godoy, Duke of Alcudia, Manuel de,
164

Gohter, Director, 106, 115
Gontaut, Duchess de, 314
Gordon, Duchess of, 68 ‘
Gouvemet,/eeTour du Pin, Marquis
de

Goya y Lucientes (F.), 164
Grand, Madame r^i? Talleyrand,
Princess de

Grand, Monsieur, 91-2, 169
Granville, Countess, 350-1, 355-6,
361

Granville, is t Earl, 67, 132, 328
Gregory xvi. Pope, 366-73
Grenville, Lord, 53-4, 70-1
GreviUe, Charles, 318, 321, 331-3,
345. 350. 3 54

GreviUe, Henry, 345, 350, 354
Grey, Countess, 337, 340
Grey, Earl, 318, 326-7, 334, 337
Guizot, Francois Pierre, 235, 346,
348. 354

Gustavus HI, King of Sweden, 24

Hamilton, Alexander, 73-4
Hardenberg, Prince of, 220, 249
Hastings, Warren, 91
Haugwitz, Count, 157
Hauterive, Count d’, 141-2
Hawkesbury, 2nd Baron, afterwards
ist Earl of Liverpool, 13 1
H6ain, Princess d’, 60
Henri iv, 119, 205

INDEX

394

Hochc, Gcaeral, 96
Holland, Eling of, ue Bonaparte,
Louis, and William i
Holland, Lord, 331, 354
Holland, Queen of, see Hortense
Hortense, Oueen of Holland, 4?,
141, 155, 157, 199
Humboldt, Alexander, 249
Hyde de NeuviUe, 12 1

Izquierdo, Eugene, 166

James ii, King of England, 14, 129,
215

Jaucourt, Marquis de, 61, 227, 244,
274

Johnson, Dr. Samuel, 62
Joseph, Emperor of Austria, 24, 152,
T95, 242

Josephine, Empress, 88, loi, 106,
109-10, 1J5, 141, 148, 176,
181, 196

Joubert, General, 107-8

Keats, John, 321
Keith, Admiral Lord, 335
Kent, Duke of, 78

Kielmannsegge, Countess, 204, 206-8
Kipling, Rudyard, 8 1
Krudener, Madame de, 280

Labrador, Marquis, 249-50, 252
Laclos, Chaderlos de, 22
Lafayette, Marquis de, 40, 62, 317,

339

Laffitte, 330

Lamartine, 293, 348, 351-1, 354
Lannes, Jean, Duke of Montebello,
185

Lansdowne, ist Marquess of, see
Shelburne

Lansdowne, 2nd Marquess of, see
Wycombe

Lansdowne, 5th Marquess of, 45

LareveUi&re, Director, 95
Lauderdale, 8th Earl of, 1 54
Laval, Madame de, 188, 200, 205,
207, 211, 281, 289
Lebrun, Charles-Franjois, 123, 163,

197. 231

Leclerc, General, 124
Lennox, Lady Sarah, 50
Leopold, Prince of Saxe-Coburg,
328-9; first King of the Belgians,
ibid.

Lessart, Antoine de, 50, 93
Leveson-Gower, see Granville
Lieven, Prmcess, 327, 341-2, 346,
356, 366

Ligne, Prince de, 245-6
Lima, Vicomte de, 166
Lincoln, Abraham, 304
Londonderry, 2nd Marquis of, see
Castlereagh

Londonderry, 3rd Marquis of 246,
292, 330-1
Louis XV, 327

Louis XVI, r6, 36, 37, 40, 51, 57-8,
roo, 215, 231, 310, 313
Louis XVIII, 100, 121, 138, 140, 142,
193, 212, 231, 233-4, 238, 255.
258, 260, 262-73, 276-7, 282,
284, 286, 299, 300-3, 309, 313,
347

Louis, Baron, 274

Louis-PhiHppe,

King, 69,

125,

264,

285,

3T2, 316-ig,

322,

325.

328,

347 > 351-2.

354 .

374

Louisa, Queen ofPrussia, 1 57-8, r7i,
176

Luynes, Duchess of, 144

Macdonald, Marshal, 109, 229
Mack, General, 148
Mallet, General, 21 1
Marat, Jean, 48

Maria Luisa, Queen of Spain, 164

INDEX

Marie-Antoinclte, Queen of France,
24, 27, 36,40, 197
Marie-Louise, Empress, 220-2
Marmont, Marshal, 222-3, 230
Mars, Mademoiselle, 199
Martignac, Jean, 314
Maubreuil, 291, 31 1
Meneval, Baron de, 140-1, 167, 187
Mercer, Miss, iee Flahaut, Countess
de

M^rim^e, Prosper, 338
Merlin de Douai, Director, 97
Metternich, 173, 184-6, 192, 220,
225, 249, 250, 253, 254, 257-
9, 286, 317

Mirabeau, Vicomte de, 28, 36, 48,
105, 257, 282, 318, 333, 349
M0I6, Count, 191, 274, 276, 279-80,
289-90, 295, 301, 303, 319, 326,
330. 347 . 372

Monk, General, 104, 121, 140
Montesquieu, Baron de, 227
Montmorency, Mathieu de, 75
Montrond, Caslmir, Marquis de, 89,
117-18,130-1, 153-5,209,261-2;

296, 345. 356-7. 366, 369. 371.

375

Mor6, Count de, 74
Moreau, General, log, 139
Morny, Duke de, 45
Morris, Gouverneur, 43, 45, 47, 68
Mortier, Marshal, 222
Moulins, General, Director, 106, 1 1 5
Murat, Caroline, Queen of Naples,
186, 199, 200, 258
Murat, Joachim, King of Naples,
118,152,184,197,251,257,273

Napoleon, ’ 45 . 94-6, 98-100, 102-3,
107-9, 111-12, 117-21, 124-42,
145, 147-50, 152-5, 157-8, 160,
162-72, 174-7, 179. 183, 186-
93, 196-7, 203-6, 2o8-io, 212-
15, 217-18, 221, 222, 225, 229-

395

30, 250-1, 253, 257, 259-60, 262,
263-5, 274, 286-7, 289, 300,
308, 323, 329, 335 , 351-4
Narbonne, Louis de, 17, 47-8, 61,
198

Necker, Jacques, 46
Nelson, Lord, 103, 130
Nemours, Duke de, 328, 336
Nesselrode, Count, 180, 205, 220,
223 * _ _

Neufch&teau, Francois de. Director,
97

Newcastle, Duke of, 8g
Ney, Marshal, 229, 284, 299
Nicholas 1 (of Russia), 317, 329
NoaiUes, Alexis de, 243
Noailles, Vicomte de, 74, 360, 366

Orange, Prince of, 329
Orleans, Duke of (r^r Louis-Philippe)
Orleans, Duke of (son of Louis-
Philippe), 337, 345, 355-6
Orleans, Duke of (Phillppe-Egalitd),
21, 22, 69
Ossian, 101
Ossory, Lady, 69
Otranto, Duke of, see Fouchd
Ouvrard, Gabriel Julien, 115, 126

Palm, Johannes H., 155
Palmerston, Lord, 326-9, 338, 340-1
Pamela {see Fitzgerald, Lady Ed-
ward), 82

Paris, Archbishop of, 361, 363, 365,

369. 375

Pasquier, Chancellor, 61, 167, 274-5,
278-9, 288-90, 312
Paul, Emperor of Russia, 130, 143
P6rier, Casimir, 314. 33°. 334 . 337
P6rigord, see Talleyrand
P6rlgord, Edmond de, 180, 182, 295,
296

P6rigord, Countess Edmond de (wife
of above), see Dino

INDEX

396

Phillips, Susanna, 61-3
Pichegru, General, 95, 97, 139
Pift, William, Earl of Chatham, 89
Pitt, William, 30, 52, 53, 130-1, 134,
152-3, 320-3
Pius VI, Pope, 42
Pius VII, Pope, 194, 287
Pobt, Duke de, 372
Poix, Princess de, 60
PolignaCj Jules de, 3'i4-i5
Popes, set Pius VI, Pius vii, Gregory

XVI

Portland, 3rd Duke of, 153
Portugal, Regent of, 164
■ Potocka,' Countess, 198-202, 204,
210, 296, 350
'Pozito di Boego, 259, 272
Pradt, Abb^ de, 208, 230
Prussia, King of, see Frederick
WiEiam iii

Raikes, Thomas, 357

R^camier, Madame, 88

Reinhard, Charles, 107, 163, 357-8,

364

Rdmusat, Madame de, 135, 280,
308

Rdmusat, Monsieur de, 148, 159,
168, 173, 222, 350
R^musat, Charles de (son of above),
• 337

Renaudes, des, 117
RewbeU, Director, gi, 95, 105
Richelieu, Cardinal, 13
Richelieu, Duke de, 281, 284, 286,
290-1,299,300-4,308
Robespierre, Masimilien Marie, 23,
69, 76, 105, 1 17, 209
Rochefoucauld Liancourt, Duke de
la, 74

Roederer, Count de, 1 13-14, n8,

Rohan, Cardinal de, 24
Rome, King of, 224

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, ii, 292
Rovigo, Duke de, 142, 204, 206, 208,
212, 221, 291

Royer-Collard, Pierre-Paul, 297, 343,
354. 369. 372

Russia, Empress of, see Catharine

Saint Aulaire, Count de, 372
St. Germain, Count de, 333
Saint M^ry, M. de, 74
San Carlos, Duke of, 169, 206, 310
Sand, George, 354-5
Savary, see Rovigo, Duke de
Saxony, King of, see Frederick
Augustus I

Schuyler, General, 75-6
Schwarzenberg, Count, 229-30
Sefton, Earl of, 3 3 3-4
Shelburne, Earl of, 54, 68, 72
SheUey, Frances, Lady, 292
Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 321
SicEy, Prince of, 328
SieyiSjAbbd, 83,105-9, 112-13, 1 17,
121, 124-5

Simons, Madame, 118, 141. 14 ^.
203

Smith, Sir Sydney, 246
Sorel, Albert, 1 54

Souza, Madame de, see Flahaut,
Madame de

Souza, Monsieur de, 82
Stael, Madame de, 46, 61-2, 76-7,
85-6, 99, 137, 299, 307, 353
Stafford, Lady, 67
Stewart, Lady Matilda, 255
Stewart, Lord Charles [see London-
derry, 3Td Marquis)

Sutherland, Lady, 44

TaEeyrand, Charles - Maurice de,
born, 12; visit to Chalais, 13; sent
to CoE^ge d’Harcourt, 14; visit
to Rheims, 15; enters St. Sulpice,
15; first love affair, 16; at the

INDEX

Sorbonne, 16; life in Paris, 17-22;
personal appearance, 23; becomes
Bishop of Autun, 25; Agent-Gen-
eral of the Clergy, 26-8; friendship
with Calonne and Mirabeau, 28;
meets Pitt, 30; represents clergy of
Autun in the States- General, 32;
visit to the Count d’ Artois, 36;
suggests nationalisation of ecclesi-
astical property, 38; his report on
education, 39; President of the
Assembly, 40; celebrates mass on
the Champ de Mars, 40; resigns
his bishopric, 41; ordains bishops,
42; affair with Madame de Flahaut,
44; views on foreign policy, 49;
first mission to England, 50; inter-
view with George iii, 53; returns
to Paris, 55; second mission to
London, 56; defends events of
loth August, 58; emigrates, 59;
at Juniper Hall, 60-5; memoran-
dum on French foreign policy, 66;
life in London, 67-70; expelled
from England, 7 1; life in America,
72-81; friendship with Hamilton,
73; interview with Cobbett, 75;
returns to France, 83; becomes
Minister for Foreign Affairs, 86;
friendship with Montrond, 89;
parentage of Delacroix, 90; Ma-
dame Grand, 91; relations with
Napoleon, 94; coup d'itat of
Fructidor, 96; views with regard
to Venice, 98; meets Napoleon, 99;
responsible for Egyptian expedi-
tion, 102; resigns office, 107; con-
spires with Napoleon, III; re-
conciles Napoleon and Sieyfes, 113;
action on the i8th and 19th
Brumaire, 114-18; puts Napoleon
in touch with Royalists, 121;
compared with Fouchd, 123; be-
comes Minister for Foreign Afiirs,

397

123; secularised by the Pope, 128;
marries jVIadame Grand, 129;
peace overtures to England, 129;
concludes Treaty of Amiens, 132;
meets Fox, 133; friendship with
Madame de R^musat, 135; con-
cerned in execution of Duke of
Enghien, 139-44; urges peace
after Ulm, 149; and after Auster-
litv., 1 5 1; becomes Prince of
Benevento, 152; attempts to make
peace with England, 153; friend-
ship with Queen Hortense, 156;
relations with the Queen of Prussia,
158; policy in regard to Poland,
160; turns against Napoleon, 162;
becomes Vice-Grand Elector, 162;
opposed to Napoleon’s Spanish
policy, 165; Spanish princes sent
to Valen9ay, 165; action at Erfurt,
176; in co-operation with Fouch^,
183; scene with Napoleon, 187;
Napoleon’s opinion of, 191; private
life, 198-207; relations with the
Duchess of Courland, 198; mem-
ber of commission of inquiry into-
conduct *of General Dupont, 207;
relations with Aim^e de Coigny,
209; refuses to resume office, 212;
gets in touch with the Bourbons,
219; advises Empress to remain in
Paris, zai;- receives Alexander,
224; becomes head of the Pro-
visional Government, 227; dis-
suades Alexander from setting up
a Regency, 230; meets Louis xviii,
233; becomes Minister for Foreign
A^rs, 235; concludes Treaty of
Paris, 236; drafts his own instruc-
tions at the Congress of Vienna,
240-3; arrives at Vienna, 248;
first meeting with delegates, 249;
divides the Allies, 253; concludes
secret treaty with England apd

398

INDEX

Austria, 255; interview with Ma-
dame de Brionnc, 259; leaves
Vienna, 261; dispatch to Louis
XYiii, 263-5; meeting with Louis
xviii at Mens, 265; scene at
council at Cambrai, 270; reconciles
Fouch^ with the King, 273;
President of the Council, 274;
creates Chamber of Peers, 275;
gets rid of Fouch6, 278; his love
for the Duchess of Dino, 280;
dismissed by Louis xvin, 282;
supports the Ultras, 285; scene at
the British Embassy, 287; dis-
graced, 290; private life, 291-9;
birth of Pauline, 296; friendship
vvith Royer-CoHard, 297; with
Barante and Thiers, 298; defends
liberty of the press, 304; opposes
war with Spain, 306; on the death
’ of Napoleon, 308; attacked by
Maubreuil, 31 1| helps to finance
the i^ational, 31 approves of
Louis - Philippe accepting the
throne, 317; appointed Ambassa-
dor to London, 319; arrival at
Dover, 320; discusses affairs of
Belgium with Wellington end
Aberdeen^ 324; relations with
M0I4 326; and with Palmerston,
327; supports candidature of Leo-
pold .for throne of Belgium, 329;
attacked and defended in the
House of Lords, 331-2; relations
with Flahaut, 335-7; concludes
Quadruple Alliance, 340; resigns,
343; life at Valengay, 345-7;
rations with Balzac and Lamar-
tine, 349; impression produced on
Lady Granville, 350; declaration
of 1st October 1836, 351; present
at marriage of the Duke of Orleans,
355; speech on the death of Rein-
hwd, 358; meets the Abbd Dupan-

loup, 363; last illness, conversion
and death, 366-75
Talleyrand, Charlotte de, 207, 372
Talleyrand, Mademoiselle de, 181
Talleyrand,' Pauline de, 295, 344,
355, 362, 364, 367-70, 373
Talleyrand, Princess de, 91-3, 127,
128, 132, 169, Z06, 346
Tallien, Madame, 75, 88, 115, 127,

132

Talma, 310
Talma, Julie, no
Tennyson, Lord, 331
Thiers, Adolphe, 298, 314, 315, 347 »
. 351 -

Tierney, George, 289
Tollendal, LaDy, 61, 63, 215
Tour and Taxis, Princess of, 175-7
Tour du Pin, Madame de la, 75-6,
94,135,214,350
Tour du Pin, Marquis de la, 243
Tyszkiewicz, Countess, 198, 296

Vaudemont, Princess de, 325, 339
Vicenza, see Caulaincourt
Victoria, Queen, 14, 299
Viliye, Count de, 303, 306, 313-
.H

Vitrolles, Eug&ne .Fran9oi3, 219-20,
227-9, 270, 272-3, 275-6, 278,
30Z

Voltaire, Franjois, i8, 292, 365, 3 59,
371

Von Goltz, 287

Walewska, Countess, 159 '

Walpole, Horace, 69, 321
Warwick, the Kingmaker, 104
Washington, George, 72-3, 134
Wellington, Duke of, 217, 258-9,
271, 273, 287, 308, 317-18, 322,
3 ^ 6 , 331. 337 . 354
Whitworth, Lord, 1 34

INDEX

William i, King of Holland, 329,
330, 338

William iv, 333, 341
Wilson, President, 225
Worlde, Catherine Noel, see Talley-
rand, Princess de
Wurtemberg, King of, 163

Wycombe, Earl, 79

Yarmouth, .Lady, 153-5
Yarmouth, Lord, 1 53-5
York, Duke of, .^3I

Zichy, Count, 254